/mu/, what's your definition of art? Do you think contemporary

>/mu/, what's your definition of art?
shit I like and you don't
>Do you think contemporary "art" has been destroying the concept itself?
If I don't like it and you do, yes

art is art

shitty art is still art

>>71501660
Not a proper argument.

>>71501662
Yeah, shitposting before shitposting.

>>71501663
Elaborate?

The most simple straightforward answer is that Art is the creative expression of a human being or group of human beings. Art doesn't mean it's either good or bad, there's plenty of bad art that is still art.

>>71501644
Art is taking one thing and transforming it into what you desire it to be.
That's my definition. Much modern art I feel is soulless and lost in semantics.

>>71501663
>>71501803
These
Something can be art as long as it's artist says it is. It's up to other people to decide if it's good or not

>>71501803
Do you think contemporary art is still art and can evoke emotions?

>>71501833

It's art, it doesn't mean I like it though. Whether or not it can provoke emotions depends on the talent and ideas put forth by the artist

>>71501894
Actually it depends on the viewer. Whether it can transport emotions from the artist to the viewer is dependent on his abilities and ideas however.

i don't believe in art
'art' is a product that you consume. everything else is romantic horsecrap. modern art is mostly wank, with products that have become massively overvalued in a bizarre and sick economy being traded at prices that far outstrip their usefulness as media objects.

>>71502034
This. I'm sorry to tell you this but in the real world, art and artists are 100% useless.

Artists and their art are just expendable commodities for businesses and people to hang on their walls to seem cultured. Also many artists will be the first to do die when the day of the rope comes.

I suggest you all get more redpilled on this matter

File: 3.jpg (12KB, 311x559px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 311x559px

>>71502034
lol get a load of this guy. above it all, aren't you?

>>71501644
at its most basic, something that has been modified with the intention of creating art
if I slap my dick on the table and intend it to be art, it is art

>>71501663

>>71501833
When you say contemporary I'm going to guess you're referring to post-modernism. And again, it depends on the piece. Some post-modernism is fascinating in how it deconstructs traditions, but some is effortless and self indulgent. You're trying to discuss an entire movement as if it's all the same which is retarded.

>>71501833
I know modern and contemporary classical can be emotional, just from personal experience. I think you paint contemporary art in too broad a stroke. Maybe artists that are known for being innovative will be known for their innovative pieces rather than their emotional ones, or in general will be more on the innovation side than the emotional side. But artists that draw from these (valid) techniques still use them to make stunning work.

Non representative visual art and post modernism generally aren't my cup of tea, but still, I feel all art becomes well known by virtue of its evocativeness and I can't deny others' apparent reactions

>>71502073

wow /pol/ you're totally stealthy on your crossposts

>>71502073
>>71502034
why are you on a music board? go to /g/ if /that's/ what you want to romanticize

>>71502181
>How americans rendered art meaningless...

Art needs to be hard to achieve, hard to reproduce, original (at least at first) and/or require talent or a ridiculous amount of training to attain. It also needs to emit a strong emotional, yet silent, response, if not now then later.

People without culture will be tempted to tell you everything is art because they have no idea what is art, partly because they never went out of their comfort zone to see what really stirs the soul, partly because they haven't experienced enough hardship to understand art.

>>71502073
That's pretty bluepilled, actually. Everyone is driven by a personal value system dependent on the cultural objects they come in contact with, so art has a purpose - mind control. Create art, have people consume it and have your thoughts and values spread by loyal fans across the globe.

>>71502293
you are assuming that art equals good art
as said before, shitty art is still art, its just semantics
*good* art needs to be all those things that you listed, I agree

>>71502293
that's a wholly indefensible position

>needs to emit a strong emotional, yet silent, response
if you are being serious, that is

>>71502400
calling anything wholly indefensible is itself wholly indefensible...
Not seeing merit != no merit there.

>>71502375
Is there really supposed to be such a thing as "bad" art ? I mean it's really binary to me (that could be where i'm wrong though). The way I see it there is art (which is good), you like or art you don't, and there is the rest of what mankind is doing (which isn't art, but which may still be good) which you like or not.

>>71502293
What you consider shitty art might "stir the soul" of the next person, not that it's even required for something to be considered art (what a dumb precedent to set). So yeah shitty art is still art.

>>71502465
calling something wholly indefensible is absolutely not wholly indefensible because it's possible to be wrong.

your position is indefensible because it requires you to define rigid limits of concepts which are entirely subjective. whether or not something is a creative expression of a human can be seen, measured, documented etc. whether something 'stirs the soul' is contained in an individual's mind, and differs greatly from person to person (even disregarding cultural differences). also something that's easy to make can 'stir' emotion, which is in direct contradiction with your definition

>>71502073
Art is arguably more important than science though

>>71502330
This.Just imagine if mainstream music actually had positive messages in it today

>>71501644
was the photographer laying down and jackin off or some shit wtf is with angle?

>>71502765
No it's not.

>>71501644
yes

post-modernism killed off sincere non-selfconscious expression, or at least looked down on it as base. many parts of the art world are self sustaining circle jerks.

>>71502807
David's a big guy

>>71502814
Newton said they are the same in his eyes

>>71502820
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxd8ml-n5NE
i wouldn't say that

File: Samuel_Johnson_by_Joshua_Reynolds.jpg (20KB, 421x512px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 421x512px

>>71502073
> redpilled
Back to /pol/ with ye, you virgin alt rightist dicklick

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

/mu/shits BTFO.

>>71502837
That doesn't make it true

>>71502832
yeah authoritative shot is cool but at the expense of giving an accurate representation of the sculpture. This photograph is the answer to this pathetic pseudo-intellectual bullshit thread. op is a faggot, yet again

>>71502876
It makes it half true

>>71502838
yeah but imagine if beck released an album back then. no one would like it because no one knew how to be 3 layers irony deep yet. i'm talking broad strokes with post-modernism, there are tons of exceptions to the rule..

>>71502814
99% of science is based around finding solutions to problems that didn't exist in the first place, or creating new problems

>>71502887
It doesn't make it anymore true than when you said it, unless he provided an argument.

>>71502878
The statue 17 feet tall anon

>>71502878
>being this autistic

>>71502896
Elaborate

>>71502940
what does that have anything to do with dimension. get a ladder or some shit

File: image.jpg (63KB, 663x670px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 663x670px

>>71502896
Exactly and some of science is always waiting to be disproved just as someone disproved some of Einsteins theories not long ago just and reduced it to shit just as someone who loves the work of this the next person would reduce it and think it's absolute shite

>>71502940
u obviously never worked in a cathedral you disgusting pleb

>>71502896
You're retarded if you actually think this.

File: 2394372_1327846543571.98res_480_359.jpg (14KB, 480x359px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x359px

Art would be so much better if artists were still painting Rembrandtesque pieces and stunning hyper-realistic statues

What the fuck happened to real art?

>>71502973
That is objectively the best album cover of the 60s

Art is just color and pattern added to an object

>>71503044
it's easier to shit on a canvas and rationalize it conceptually then it is to master painting and sculpting. art became an absurdly-academic circle jerk race to the bottom. i think it also stems from the strong zeitgeist of apathy and nihilism going on with most more people in america then ever before right now.

>>71503093
So music isn't art?

>>71502920
I'm just saying what Newton thought of art he thinks art and science are one in the same I'm not forcing you to believe his thoughts.

>>71503110
sorry, i had a stroke while typing this

>>71503126
I know, and I'm saying that fact isn't an argument.

>>71503126
He saw music and sculptures in a very positive light I never read anything he said about paintings though

>>71503150
Saying not an argument really isn't an argument either

>>71501662
the fact so many people constantly bring Fountain up as an example of "not art" is what makes it such a great piece of art

>>71503173
when everything is beautiful, nothing is beautiful

>>71503197
art is not and should not be synonymous with beauty

>>71503170
Yeah, it's a statement in response to your non-argument. You're the one who should be providing arguments that back up your assertion that art is more important than science.

>>71502799
Retard

>>71503264
I don't think you are that much of one you're just a little slow maybe dyslexic

>>71503216
let me try this.

when everything has artistic value, nothing has artistic value.

>>71503112
Isn't music just pattern added to sound?

>>71503327
the intrinsic property of being art has nothing to do with value, in my eyes at least

>>71503409
In its most basic form, yeah. Reductionism is a meme though

This is a good thread, op. I recommend you all take an aesthetics (philosophy of art) class

>>71503441
You're talking to a reductionist database

>>71503441
Fair enough. I don't think anyone is going to agree on a definition of art unless it's stripped to it's core.

>>71503044
Because we have photography and it's boring.

Anything you can put a frame around

Art should be like a product. I should expect immediate pleasure from the beauty and aesthetic value of it. Not be force to look at something that conflicts inside me and forces me to look at subjects in a different light. Anyone else feel the same?

>>71503044
So stupid. So everyone should be unoriginal and recreate things that already exist and it's merit should be based on how realistic it depicts it? What a simpleminded view of art. Picasso has a good quote related to this: "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."

>>71503569
How retarded are you? You just wanna look at pretty things?

>>71503428
nothing has intrinsic properties in and of itself. the properties we see as coming from objects are the properties we project onto them. this is why different people see different things in the same item.

>>71503569
*logs onto deviantart and looks at furry porn and stencils of marvel characters for 6 hours*
now THAT's what real "art" is all about :)

>>71503678
so how the outside world come into us?

>>71502073
>day of the rope

let me guess, alt right is the new punk right?

>>71503768
through our nervous system. i meant properties as in artistic/emotional properties that we see in something we consider art, not size, color, shape etc. although there are varying degrees of subjectivity with that too between people.

>>71503835
or even the emotional properties we see in things we don't consider art i.e. a sunset, the ocean etc. that's what i meant by properties.

>>71503835
so art can also "shape" us

>>71503863
Yeah, i'd say that. Like how the abyss stares back into you when you stare into it.

>>71501663
no it isn't.

art by definition has to appeal aesthetically to a sense. If it's ugly, it's not art.

>>71502181
completely wrong. art, and music, are about what you create, not what you inteded to. If i slap my dick on the table and intend it to be a rap song, it's not a rap song. You have to RAP for it to be a song. You have to create something aesthetic for it to be art.

>>71502375
shitty art is not art unless it's an attempt towards good art. Shitting in a toilet is not art stop putting crap and piss and hot cheetos in art galleries with your mediocre thinking

>>71503835
perhaps i was not being precise enough in my language. i agree that the artistic/emotional properties of any given object are not intrinsic, but i believe that the state of 'being art' is intrinsic to an object or sound or whatever (under the definition of art being the product of creative expression of a human)

it's probably a little vague and there's some problem with intent and defining what we mean by creative expression but yeah

>>71503935
So Jackson Pollack wasn't an artist?

>>71502484
This is an argument that's always made, but is taken drastically out of context.

There are people who's soul can stirred by literally anything put in front of them, because they actively look for meaning in anything in an art gallery.

True art doesn't need to be put in a gallery to be recognized.

Sorry mate, a bowl of piss or a urinal would be gross and unexciting in any other context than a gallery and you know it

>>71502073
>Day of the rope

Please fuck off /pol/

>>71503951
>If i slap my dick on the table and intend it to be a rap song, it's not a rap song. You have to RAP for it to be a song. You have to create something aesthetic for it to be art.
If you are slapping to a specific rhythm it can be music, which is art.

Nice try though

>>71503965
okay yeah i agree with you 100%. talking about art is tough. it's like dancing about architecture. the limits of communication come into play quickly when you get into the nitty gritty of it.

>>71503935
Are you actually serious

Some people have different fucking tastes. "Ugliness" is subjective.

>>71504118
see >>71502867

>>71504118
depends on what your definition of "is" is

>>71504217
>implying you can have beauty without ugliness
Otherwise you wouldn't even know what beauty was

>>71502765
no it isn't and it's not even close

The people who hate postmodernism know the least about art and certainly music.

>>71504793
How post-modern.

File: trumpye.jpg (34KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x259px

We live in a capitalist society and that should be considered whenever pondering philosophical, cultural, and social thoughts.

If you are an artist you will eventually understand there is a difference between art and entertainment.

There is no such thing is art or culture in a capitalist society, just entertainment, products meant to extract wealth.

Art, real art, is made from the innerself, something that doesn't please the elite, doesn't please the status quo ( this means the liberal status quo as well).
Art is something that lasts through time, art is emotions, emotions last through time, art is beauty, real beauty, something that brings a person pleasure.

Think of it like this, thousands of people still go italy to view the sistine chapel, a work of art made from religious faith, not greed.
Pop music that was made 10 years ago is rarely listened to by anyone.

You have to think about art through out time, even to the stone age, where the cavemen drawing on the caves to make money?!
No.

An artist does piss people off, you should be happy when people are mad at your art, happy when people are feeling emotions towards your art, it isnt about money.

>>71504945
And in addition there have already been profound musical artworks from the 90's and 00's which can be considered classic now.

>>71503173
This t bh
It served it's purpose well

>>71504793
how does it feel to be part of the problem

inb4 muh nihilism muh subjectivity muh intellectual superiority

>>71503327
That's kind of the point of the urinal thing.

>>71504945
>Real art
No true Scottsman

File: gondolas night on the town.png (92KB, 600x599px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x599px

Modern art is a cat and mouse game between capitalists trying to use it as a money laundering scheme and artists trying to make real art that isnt a disposable product.
I doubt people who hate post modern are know what process art is.
Modern art isnt about the finished product, its about the process, or the concept, or the performance.

Art is more than just paintings.

>>71505031
Which is why it should be determined by the intent of the artist, rather than the perception of the outcome

>>71505032
Man I love how Internet arguments devolve into teenagers one-lining fallacies in place of any actual critical thought.

File: klee.jpg (3MB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1536x2048px

Abstract art is about taking the real and making it unreal.
It isnt representational.

Art is about emotions, if you see an abstract painting that makes you feel something than its art.

>>71505031
I know, and it's a message that makes me want to jump off a bridge. I believe art should be used for more than pointing out how meaningless art is. That's not deep. That's a moral sickness.

>>71505087
>actual critical thought.
>"real art"
Nah

>>71505100
Are you saying that the design and form of a urinal has no value?
Is an Aston Martin not an elegantly designed artwork in its own way?
And certainly you couldn't say Rothko and Pollock aren't masters.

>>71505100
okay, i'll try this. We're talking about the definition of art. Not the definition of "real art". Drawing a distinction between "fake" and "real" art is arbitrary and trite. Society has nothing to do with it. Art is what happens between the object and the observer. Everything else is just an irrelevant context.

>>71505119
I'm not saying it has no value. I'm saying it's a symbol of waste and urine. I see plenty of them every day, and i only appreciate their form when they're connected to a plumbing system. outside of that context it has no value. I love Pollock and Rothko. They create things with the intention of them being viewed as art by others. This is not the case with the urinal.

>>71504945
This is pretty agreeable.

>>71505191
DESU as long as we agree that Postmodernism isn't inherently shit we're cool. I'm not the biggest fan of the urinal either

>>71504765
I'm just saying what Newton said who is the most important scientist of all time

>>71504079
>rhythm

So in other words it needs to have aesthetic appeal. Thank you for agreeing with me.

>>71505245
What doesn't have aesthetic appeal to you?
Do Pollock and Rothko?
Do Cage and Feldman?

>>71504000
If you saw a jackson pollack painting in any other setting than an art gallery would you appreciate it?

No.

Everything under the capitalist system is based off templates, pop art, remakes, archetypes, expanded universes, reboots, sequels, sampling.

Once you stand back and examine the hell world we live in you realize there is no such thing as art.
Everyone is too scared to take a risk because then it means losing money

>>71505286
Yes, you would. Because the power and enormity of the painted work is emotionally affecting no matter where it is placed.

His paintings are like the Hubble Deep Field.

>>71504945
there is / has been a distinction between art and entertainment in non-capitalist societies as well i.e. north korea, USSR. All entertainment is technically art like all squares are technically rectangles. Your argument doesn't hold up. Art has nothing to do with capitalism, and its definition doesn't change in non-capitalist societies. you're just a pretentious teen trying to make everything about capitalism because that is VERY in vogue right now.

>>71504079
You're introducing rhythm, which is something i didn't do. So your definition is actually much more restrictive than mine is.

Rhythm can be mathematically calculated, must be consistent and repetitive by definition.

I don't even think you need that to create good music.

I said it has to have aesthetic appeal, which slapping your dick on a table does not.

>>71505288
Postmodern reinterpretations and reworks are still very artistic.

If father john misty released an album of him screeching while shooting up heroin and playing the ukulele, would it be art, it would be original, and it would be risky.
Why do you think music critics jerk off to trout mask replica

>>71505288
fucking idiot

>>71505325
Yeah, in your hypothetical it could absolutely be artistic and indeed art.
>>71505314
>Rhythm can be mathematically calculated, must be consistent and repetitive by definition.
So I guess Varese' Ionisation isn't rhythmic?

>>71505288
see
>>71505312

>>71505312
art under capitalism is a product, ever hear of the stereotype about the starving artist?
As an artist you have a decision to make you can be john cage or you can be the black eyed peas

>>71505347
John Cage was not starving.
Harrison Birtwistle and Mark Applebaum aren't starving either.

>>71505232
Instead of saying what newton thinks, why don't you think for yourself and say what you think?

Keep in mind Newton lived in a time before social media, the internet, radio, satellite, telephones, modern medicine, video and audio.

Keep in mind Newton lived in a time just after the renaissance, when western art was at it's greatest point in over 3 thousand years.

Learn to think for yourself

Remember the black eyed peas?
Played the superbowl, topped the charts, aged out of pop music and no one gives a fuck anymore lol
The system likes the product to be young and relatable.

Ever wonder why no one over the age of 25 gets played on top 40?


You're fucking delusional if you dont think money and capitalism and art are all intertwined and effect each other

>>71505361
Not him, but I would definitely say art is as important as science.

Without science, we would never progress and never find a way to survive off of this eventually doomed planet.

Without art, we would never have a reason to survive at all.

>>71505347
thought experiment:

you're the last human alive on earth, there is no economic or social system at all. you sit down and paint a bowl of grapes. DOES ART EXIST??!??!!??

>>71505252
It's not about to me or to any individual, it's about a general appeal of sensory pleasure.

If you go to a restaurant, spend 200$ on a tasting menu, and you're served nothing but salt then you would be rightfully upset.

It isn't that i don't like the taste of salt, it's just that salt by itself is not a meal. Salt must be applied to something greater to bring out its flavour and taste.

It isn't that rothko and pollock have no aesthetic appeal whatsoever, it's just that they are incredibly mediocre and sterile

File: watson1[1].jpg (98KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1200x675px

>>71501662
>A Eur-ay-nal!

>>71505410
he's a pseudo-intellectual retard but the message he tries to convey is somewhat right

watch >>71502867 by someone who actually knows his shit

File: art.jpg (39KB, 773x398px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 773x398px

>>71501644

>>71505347
it's not a product until you sell it. what is it before then? what if you never sell it?

>>71505409
>If you go to a restaurant, spend 200$ on a tasting menu, and you're served nothing but salt then you would be rightfully upset.
How does this have any application to Pollock or Rothko? There is no monetary cost to their works unless you are an art collector, which is an irrelevant topic for this discussion.
>It isn't that rothko and pollock have no aesthetic appeal whatsoever, it's just that they are incredibly mediocre and sterile
They are neither. Mediocre implies anyone could make their works, which is objectively wrong. Sterile implies there is no life or vibrancy, which when I look at Pollock's #5 my mind is always engaged.

>>71505433
Sad thing is people will use this video and H3H3 as ACTUAL LEGITIMATE SOURCES

>>71505433
Isn't postmodernism supposed to be less about how the artist expresses itself and more about how the audience responds to the art?

>>71505467
The only true thing about Postmodernism is how it interacts with the past.

>>71505308
what is the power and enormity of the work?

What emotions do they affect?

How are they like the hubble deep field?

Start explaining your statements

>>71505482
So you don't have an argument, and are instead trying to fish inconsistencies from me. Let me know when you can engage in a dialogue.

>>71505339
The whole point of it was to not be rhythmic.

>>71505528
Do you have a quote from Varese to that effect? I understand he wasn't crafting the most elegant formal compositions but it would be utterly false to say a percussion piece consisting solely of unpitched rhythms is not inherently rhythmic.

>>71505467
sort of

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

>>71505388
I'll tell you this, nothing in the universe owes you a reason for it's occurrence.

Your existence, feelings, survival, and experience do not owe you a reason or understanding.

>>71505577
What does that have to do with my post?

>>71505482
Not him but the chaotic and vibrant lines of paint give a sense of awe-inspiring majesty. I feel something similar to looking at a gothic cathedral or the tunnel view in Yosemite, though perhaps on a smaller scale, since it is a painting instead of a massive cathedral or a sprawling landscape.

>>71503173
No, it's not a piece of art and it wasn't intended as such.
>The context for the purchase and naming of Fountain was a worthy exhibition by the Society of Independent Artists, formed on the model of the Parisian Salon des Indépendants. It was to show works by anyone, subject to a fee of $1 for membership and $5 annual dues. Duchamp himself, as a celebrated foreign artist, was on the board, as were various prominent American painters and art world figures. From early on, however, Duchamp seemed tempted to subvert the whole enterprise.

>>71505528
a repeating sound can be non-rhythmic in a musical sense but it can't be non-rhythmic in a literal sense by definition. "the systematic arrangement of musical sounds". the sounds were still arranged by somebody, even if it's randomly improvised non-regular repetitions of a sound. 'doing things randomly' is still a systematic approach to arranging sounds.

>>71505616
It was intended as an artistic statement, neither positive nor negative.

>>71505629
an item you bought from a store =/= an artistic statement

>>71505435
My point is, if a chef serves you salt with no meat, you would not call him a chef. His food doesn't deserve to be in a restaurant. He hasn't earned his reputation as a chef other than from people who are trying to pass themselves off as refined for having "advanced pallates and taste"


Mediocre doesn't imply ease of reproduction. I can shit but it's not a work of art because your shit doesnt look the exact same as mine. don't be silly. It's often hard to reproduce something that has no discernible pattern or intention. That's part of what makes bad art confusing to people, it's very easy to be unique when you throw away technique and standards.

How is your mind engaged in that painting? Engagement doesn't imply quality, life or vibrancy by the way

>>71505245
>So in other words it needs to have aesthetic appeal
No, appeal is irrelevant.

It has to have some sort of creative organization.
>>71505286
It was created as art, so yes
>>71505314
>You're introducing rhythm, which is something i didn't do
You said you were playing your penis percussive, which is a rhythm.
>I said it has to have aesthetic appeal
It doesnt, since appeal is relative.

>>71505656
You can definitely make it into an artistic statement, stop acting like the teenager you are.

>>71505100
>I know, and it's a message that makes me want to jump off a bridge. I believe art should be used for more than pointing out how meaningless art is. That's not deep. That's a moral sickness.
This is what Frank Zappa did and that's precisely why he had something in his music to offend anyone. And he did it right. He poked at tropes, taboos, cultural appropriation and many listeners couldn't fathom the idea that someone dared to make an album not about love. And all that while playing with some of the most prominent and influential musicians of the time.

>>71505666
>My point is, if a chef serves you salt with no meat, you would not call him a chef. His food doesn't deserve to be in a restaurant. He hasn't earned his reputation as a chef other than from people who are trying to pass themselves off as refined for having "advanced pallates and taste"
Honest question: do you know ANYTHING about Pollock? Have you seen any of his paintings from before his abstract-expressionist period? Or are you just blindly going off what H3H3 told you?

I'm not going to talk to someone who blatantly has no expertise in this field.

>>71505526
It's so funny how when asked to explain yourself you cower away and demand an argument.

Are you going to continue to make vague unexplained comments and demand arguments?

Explain what you say for christ's sake.

>>71501644
no

>>71505672
something has to be created for that to happen. Okay, he wrote his name on it, he put it outside of its original context, but art is made when you create something with the intention of it being seen as art. I understand the reasoning behind it. he didn't create anything though. he bought a urinal and put it in a gallery.

>>71505552
The definition of the word rhythm is this:

a strong, regular, repeated pattern of movement or sound

there is no strong, regular, repeated pattern of movement or sound in that composition.

>>71505713
John Cage's 4'33'' is not created by the composer, it's created by the audience, the hall, and what's outside the hall.

>>71505672
Ironically, i used to share your viewpoint when I was younger. i went full Edgy Dada Art Isn't Real just like you.

>>71505713
>he didn't create anything though
>The artist brought the urinal to his studio at 33 West 67th Street, reoriented it to a position 90 degrees from its normal position of use, and wrote on it, "R. Mutt 1917
He did

>>71505595
Being without reason and understanding doesn't mean being without importance. The biochemistry of our bodies has always been important whether we could understand it or make reason of it.

Likewise, providing reason does not mean something provides importance.

Why is art important?

>>71505728
No, that is A definition that you got from Google. The second definition is
>the systematic arrangement of musical sounds, principally according to duration and periodic stress.
Want me to get more academic definitions by musical databases?

File: 5daef5b04056c22de4a0c28fd7aeb07f.jpg (43KB, 436x600px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 436x600px

>>71505672
I'm the one who posted that text. Duchamp knew full well what would become of that urinal. He was simply testing the rules established by the Society of Independent Artists.
>But Fountain was rejected by the committee, even though the rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee.After some consternation and a brief discussion it was decided that the six dollar submission should be returned to 'Mr. Mutt' with a letter stating that it had no place in an art exhibition.Duchamp immediatelyresigned from the society stating that “The only works of art America has given (the world) are her “plumbing and her bridges”.
That being said, Duchamp was clearly an artist. Here's a painting of his.

>>71503044
I really hope this post is ironic.

>>71505760
>Why is art important?
If the adage that "Life imitates art" is true, then art is a non-destructive way to examine the human experience

>>71505760
If we were looking from a raw scientific perspective, there is no purpose in investing energy towards living in a universe that will eventually completely be destroyed. There would have to be some deeper meaning, within ourselves, that would make it worth striving towards. That is art.

>>71505730
No, it is a piece created by the composer. He created the directions that the orchestra follows. like the complete silence and the coordinated page turning. If he didn't create anything, then 4'33" would exist even if john cage never existed, and that's not the case. However if Duchamp never was born, urinals would still exist exactly how he "presented" it.

>>71505733
I think art is very real. I just don't think you've proven you have an understanding of art.

>>71505790
>However if Duchamp never was born, urinals would still exist exactly how he "presented" it.
Since it's not a working urinal, no it is not

>>71505790
>like the complete silence
Which is not what the piece is: John Cage created the piece specifically because the hall would not be silent despite no music being played.

>>71505728
He actually wrote a score to 4'33" though. It just says tacet 3 times. By directing the 'performer' to stay silent, he implicitly places the role of the performer in the hands of the audience. That is the intent behind 4'33". It's merely an extension of Cage's other aeleatoric works (chance music).

>>71505434
culture.

Remember culture.

You know, like tribal art, or you know, when they find those old artifacts buried underground of some rotund fertility goddess.


I dont think capitalists can grasp the idea of making art out of something that isnt for greed


remeber when you were a kid and you had so much fun doodling in your notebook

>>71505799
well obviously no one does compared to you

You ever been in love with a girl and made her art?
Like a song, or drawing, or anything.

So sentimental, so stupid, so human.

Not out of money, because you love her

>>71505805
there would be a non-working urinal on it's back somewhere in the world surely. technically it's art, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.

>>71505833
Well if anyone else has studied degree music on a University level then they feasibly could compare.

>>71505598
Thank you for explaining why you like it.

You find beauty in chaos. By it's very nature chaos is disorder. However, chaos can be controlled and manipulated to become beautiful under the right hands.

Is controlled chaos more beautiful than uncontrolled chaos to you? Do you agree that more times than not, due to it's random nature, chaos is not beautiful?

>>71505849
>technically it's art
Case closed
>but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.
>if I don't like it, it's not a good thing to do

>>71505856
>Is controlled chaos more beautiful than uncontrolled chaos to you? Do you agree that more times than not, due to it's random nature, chaos is not beautiful?
If we were to compare controlled chaos as Ferneyhough's La Terre est un Homme and uncontrolled chaos as something like Cage's Music of Changes, I think I would actually prefer the more random and disorganized music of Cage.

But all art is organized and ordered. Pollock relying on instinct rather than training is not "uncontrolled."

>>71505855
you are such an autistic faggot

>>71505898
I'm sorry you don't have the knowledge to discuss art, but you have every opportunity to seek this knowledge.

>>71502073
Alright, Paul Joseph.

>>71501644
art is the art of novelty
novelty may appear in the forms of mastery, connectivity or subversion never before seen, sometimes all three at the same time
by that both "classical" and contemporary art are good and you fags can shut the hell up

>>71505622
>Doing things randomly is still a systematic approach

Unsystematic and random are actually synonyms though

>>71505878
you should present a piece of art titled "my corpse", write "asshole" on your forehead with magic marker, and shoot yourself in the heart in an art gallery. do you like it? if you don't that doesn't mean it's not a good thing to do.

>>71505926
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleatoric_music
>>71505938
Not an argument

>>71505926
there are multiple definitions of random, and it's debatably impossible to create true randomness. try randomly listing numbers 1-9 with no repeating patterns at all. patterns emerge naturally as a result of how people do "random"

>>71505361
I do think for myself you idiot someone made the case that art is more important then science I agreed by providing evidence objectively from the greatest scientist who has lived so far there are a myriad of reasons to think so and Newton saying art and science are very much the same is evidence enough I'm not applying moral relativism. 97% of this thread is people going on subjective thought without factual evidence this may hurt but facts are usually more important than emotion and the fact is most scientists agree with Newton and if there are fedoras like many on this thread alone saying art is shite I guereentee you they like at least 1 artist

>>71505671
>No, appeal is irrelevant.
>It has to have some sort of creative organization

Wrong.
Organization is irrelevant. Much of art and music is improvised.

Art is defined as Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their BEAUTY OR EMOTIONAL POWER.

AESTHETIC APPEAL MEANS BEAUTY.

Aesthetic appeal, or beauty, is the sole aim of the arts.

>It was created as art, so yes
If something was created as food but is inedible, it's not food.

If something was created as art but is unaesthetic and ugly, it's not art.

>You said you were playing your penis percussive, which is a rhythm.

Hitting something once is not a rhythm

>It doesnt, since appeal is relative
No it isn't. some things are objectively appealing to human senses such as patterns and pitch.

>>71506035
>Aesthetic appeal, or beauty, is the sole aim of the arts.
*according to Classic, European philosophy.

Not relevant 300-1000 years in the future.

>>71505905
i dropped out of college when i started making enough money with music and met enough other working musicians. like an actual musician.

nobody who has a music degree makes any money with music. if you had the ability to, you wouldn't have had to go to school in the first place. now you know more about philosophy of art, but you're not going to use your degree in any meaningful work for your entire life.

>>71505685
"no expertise" "doesn't know who pollock is" "you must listen to H3H3"

there it is, the snobby "refined" hipster attitude that is the lifeblood for shitty contemporary art.

I'm sure you have superior tastes than us normal folk

fuck off

>>71505766
go ahead

>>71506064
>nobody who has a music degree makes any money with music.
If by "any money" you mean being a corporate fatcat sure. But I'm guaranteed a job in my field. Perks of going to a great university.
>>71506067
I do, honestly.
Look if you are going into Pollock and Rothko galleries with absolutely no knowledge of this form, I don't spite you for not liking it. But if you then consider your uninformed opinion as legitimate and reasoned then you can fuck off you absolute degenerate.

>>71506090
teaching?

america and american culture were a mistake

>>71505783
good point, i didn't see it that way.

>>71505787
you don't need science or art to have philosophical morals.

>>71506084
Generically, a ‘movement marked by the regulated succession of strong or weak elements’ (Oxford English Dictionary). In etymological discussions of the term there is a tension between rhythm as continuously ‘flowing’ and rhythm as periodically punctuated movement. In musical contexts the term is even harder to pin down. Fassler remarks: ‘There is no accurate simple definition of the term “rhythm” (or “rhythmics”) and no consistent historical tradition to explain its significance’ (B1987, p.166 n.10). Sachs is even more pessimistic: ‘What is rhythm? The answer, I am afraid, is, so far, just – a word: a word without generally accepted meaning. Everybody believes himself entitled to usurp it for an arbitrary definition of his own. The confusion is terrifying indeed’ (A1953, p.12). Etymology is thus of little assistance.

-Grove Music Online

Rhythm in music is normally felt to embrace everything to do with both time and motion—with the organization of musical events in time, however flexible in metre and tempo, irregular in accent, or free in durational values. Much argument has been devoted to the question of whether rhythm or pitch is more fundamental to music. It is certainly the case that we are more likely to talk about rhythm without any mention of music, or ‘time’ without any mention of art, than to talk about pitch in a non-musical context. But this in itself merely serves to stress the fact that the connotations of rhythm are a good deal more complex than those of ‘rhythmic’ or ‘rhythmical’. When we refer to the strongly rhythmic character of a march, or a typical piece of rock music, it is the recurrence of heavy, regular accentuation and the distinction between relatively strong and relatively weak accents which we have in mind, no less than the presence of a constant pulse or tempo. ‘Rhythmic’ music tends to be that with the most predictable, least varied, rhythmic character.

-Oxford Music Companion

>>71505807
Well that sounds like a decent explanation. I'll take your word for it then

>>71506100
Yeah. And then down the road I'll return for a Doctorate in Musicology or Theory.

>>71506142
jesus christ have fun with that. you're definitely condescending enough for academia.

>>71505881
>I think I would actually prefer the more random and disorganized music of Cage.

then we disagree on what music is

>>71506163
I'm condescending towards the pretentious and the ignorant. People in everyday life are fine though.

>>71506173
Then your definition of music irrelevant to modernity.

>>71505948
It's definitely an interesting concept.

>>71505965
3, 8, 7, 2, 4, 1, 5 ,9

>>71506006
did you read what i said

>>71505787
Isn't literature thought of as art?
Books in genaral were thought of as art in the 1600s

>>71506186
go drown in a urinal and reflect on how much aesthetic value a urinal has on your way out

>>71506233
Note how you added 5 between 3 and 8, then subtracted 5 from 7 and 2. Then the gap from 2 to 4 is of 2, from 4 to 1 is 3, from 1 and 5 is 4.

There are always patterns.
>>71506243
What's your point? I haven't invalidated literature.

>>71506057
You don't know what the future will bring.

But yes you are right, I do follow the Classical definition of art, because I believe Classical art is the most beautiful.

I also believe that the redefinition of art has to do with the lack of skill of artists. It's easy to say you're doing something new because you're not talented enough to do something as well as those in the past.

Art has been declining in technique and skill, and that is objective.

>>71506090
>I do, honestly.
>Look if you are going into Pollock and Rothko galleries with absolutely no knowledge of this form, I don't spite you for not liking it. But if you then consider your uninformed opinion as legitimate and reasoned then you can fuck off you absolute degenerate.

you hipsters make me sick

>>71505032
wow a teenager who read the pol sticky

>>71506268
So you hate Monet and Cezanne's rejection of technique?

>>71506307
Yep. Because /pol/ invented it. and /pol/ is the only place anyone can ever see it, because it's the only place YOU'VE seen it.

>>71506233
Did you read what I said

>>71506256
I'm not insulting you I'm saying the literature is just another form of art

>>71501660
As usual, first post best post

/mu/ sucks

>>71506342
I never said any of those things, but I would be willing to bet money that that's where he got it, and probably you too

>>71502073
>>>/pol/
Back to your shithole

>>71503044
As always, anime posters are fucking idiots who should stay in their containment thread

>>71506128
So according to this definition, rhythm is free of organization in time, tempo, durational value, and accent.

I understand what is being said here, I really do.
But that definition is directly opposite to the contemporary usage and understanding of the word rhythm. Perhaps a different term should be created to better differentiate the two.

File: 1472997251909.jpg (143KB, 1010x1024px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1010x1024px

>>71502073
>day of the rope

>>71506404
i'd be willing to bet that's where you got it from lol. some people read about formal logic before they fucked up bad enough to end up on 4chan.

>>71506256
what about from 8 - 7 and 5 - 9?

It seems like there are different "patterns" in the set with no discernible connection. How is that not random unless they can all be linked together?

File: 1486643445233.jpg (84KB, 575x575px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 575x575px

>>71502243
>>71502262
>>71502330
>>71502765
>>71502863
>>71503813
>>71504053
>>71505921
>>71506408
>>71506447

it wasnt even good bait

>>71506317
Yes

>>71506467
Do a string that's 40 digits long. The musician playing random rhythms plays more than 7 random notes.

>>71505288
people can simply choose to not market their art, it would still be art

/mu/ will always be the worst board

>>71506505
3.1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 8 9 7 9 3 2 3 8 4 6 2 6 4 3 3 8 3 2 7 9 5 0 2 8 8 4 1 9 7 1

File: picasso_bull1.jpg (79KB, 488x461px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 488x461px

the original philosophy of western art was to make aesthetic works of beauty.
post modernism is basically "uhhh dude art is like subjective"- A jew *takes a shit in a trash bag and says its about the inherit greed of capitalism and the endless drive to commodiffy every micron of reality

>>71506035
>Organization is irrelevant. Much of art and music is improvised.
Improvisation is a type of organization
>AESTHETIC APPEAL MEANS BEAUTY.
SO IF IT'S UGLY IT'S NOT ART?
Wrong.
>If something was created as art but is unaesthetic and ugly, it's not art.
Wrong
>Hitting something once is not a rhythm
But twice is. The original scenario didn't claim how many times a penis was hit, so your retort is not relevant
>some things are objectively appealing
Then why do some people find things appealing,and others don't? For instance, I don't find metal-core appealing at all but clearly people do. Is it appealing or not?

>>71506668
>A jew
Stopped reading right there

File: jew seuuse.jpg (257KB, 1000x877px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 1000x877px

>>71506762

Beauty is what brings a person pleasure, this is actually what is subjective and vague

>>71506668
>>"MUH DEGENERATE MODERNITY A BLOO BLOO BLOO"
>>he doesn't know that a lot of those AESTHETICISMALS were for titillation or were vulgar displays of wealth
>>he gets angry about MUH DEWS BLUH GLOBAL CONSPIRACSEE ruining all Pure Good Blonde Western Art Forever
>>he unironically thinks Western Art is a coherent category with a unifying philsophy

You're the kind of person who complained when Brunelleschi started experimenting with perspective

File: poopy pepep.jpg (121KB, 874x874px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 874x874px

>>71506850
I seem to have hit a nerve my Semitic friend

What is art is a question of cemantics. It's a question of what is CONSIDERED art. The term didn't come about before the renessaince, but we had "artistic works" way before that. I don't think contemporaries has "destroyed art," but in our time anything can be defined as art. Because there are no limitations of what "art" is, the term is meaningless. Everything is art therefore art is nothing.

When you say performance, music, litterature, painting - everyone have a remotely correct assumption of what to expect. Some would argue modern "artists" (whatever that is) is to blame for the vagueness of the term.

>>71506905
>Because there are no limitations of what "art" is, the term is meaningless. Everything is art therefore art is nothing.
This is not correct.

>>71506905

is the moon art?

>>71506920
How constructive

>>71506929
Well, what do you want to know?

>>71506850
everything you say is so smug and self-satisfied i just want to punch you through the computer. I agree with you but the way you speak is repulsive. It makes me want to change my opinion so that i'm in no way affiliated with you whatsoever.

>>71506921
I thought the moon was a special kind of flying cheese.

>>71507161

you said

>everything is art

i guess what i'm trying to say is that you're dumb. not everything is art. a human has to fuck with it first and find an audience (even if it's just the artist) before it's art.

>>71507233
>a human has to fuck with it first and find an audience (even if it's just the artist) before it's art.
This

In other words, it needs to be intended as art.

>>71506905
If the term art is meaningless then why do you keep using it?

>>71506889
>>"i-i-i-if you disagree with me you're a meeny stinky jew-jew!"

sure told me, richard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkw_ybhY7eo

>>71506961
It's pretty much a take off of the kind of puling gobshite who thinks being an internet nazi with a frog for a face is political innovation.

I apologise for the otherwise repulsive nature of the pastiche, but it is what that sort of person sounds like, in my experience.

See:>>71506889

>>71502073
>world with no art
>universal depression in every nation from lack of stimulus and entertainment
>the only philosophy to be found is written in boring bullet points with no metaphorical or metaphysical ideas, as those would require some expression of creativity and might be considered art by the "Art Is Useless" Act of 2017
>everyone does the same thing every day until suicide rates overtake birth rates

>>71502867
cherrypicking: the documentary

well, even anti-art is art...that's why we reject it

Art/creativity is the greatest thing we have in life

>>71510413
This.reminder that the Internet is art

>>71502293
Metamodernism has its place, though. I make a lot of skeptical art about the futility of modern art due to western decline in the things you listed, to which I am also party/guilty.

>>71510834
edit: yes, it's intentionally as pretentious as that sounds, to be funny and highlight its own point.

>>71510611
tfw meme culture will become a legitimate field of study in 100 years

>>71508472
watched first 5 minutes: the post

>>71505410
I hate this fucking faggot and the way he speaks. I mean, I don't respect "contemporary art" as well, but the way he speaks makes me want to put an unworked rock in the middle of a park and call it an art piece

>>71501644
I love guys like duchamp and john cage. I love people who push the boundaries, but at this point in 2017 if you're doing blank canvas paintings and shit, I think you're a hack. Been done. It's still art, but it's hack

>>71511016
This.All fedoras need to drown

>>71511258
>if it's ugly, it's not art!
>not being fedora

>>71511333
Never said that but very nice HD projections though

>>71511468
Oh you didn't watch the video?

File: image.jpg (69KB, 737x225px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 737x225px

>>71511578
I did and they used the worst possible example of the bed which is art but the girl gave the stupid explanation saying "I say it is" also this is objectively amazing and it would be considered contemporary

>>71501644
Creations that I am pleased by aesthetically.

Contemporary art isually carries less substance than classic art, but there are still some gems amongst the shit.

>>71511076
in fairness he is a moist little toad so your reaction is completely understandable

>>71505656
Putting it on display in an art gallery is the statement.

>>71511637
So as you can see >>71511468 implies >>71511333

Thanks for playing

File: image.jpg (47KB, 460x436px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 460x436px

>>71511677
Not sure what you're even trying to pronounce I like post modernism

>>71511723
So you angry art can be ugly?

>>71511782
I'm not you seem like the only angry person in this thread rn I'm referring to the fedoras who think all art is useless and should be repealed or whatever but then again they're probably baiting

>>71511907
>angry
Ooops that was a typo. Should be "agree"

So you AGREE art can be ugly?

>>71511982
duh never argued against and does who do in this thread don't have compelling arguments

>>71512044
>duh never argued against
See >>71511258

>>71512138
Referring to people who say "all art is useless" son

>>71512167
So you replied to the wrong post

>>71512273
No

>>71512292
Well you must have because the guy you replied to was defending the video explaining that beauty should be the only point of art.

>>71512318
But the guy in the vid was using terrible examples like the bed which I agree is art but to connisours of Art might find it incredibly pedantic and pretiontious he still thought it was art just shit art it's still art

>>71512375
So you misspoke

>>71506742
>SO IF IT'S UGLY IT'S NOT ART?

exactly m8

without beauty, it's not art.

you can't be taught m8 if you say silly things like

>The original scenario didn't claim how many times a penis was hit, so your retort is not relevant

you just sound like a smartass, you know it meant once.

I said SOME things are objectively appealing then you ask me why some people find things appealing and others don't.

For fucks sake man

>>71512396
Nope very nice sneak bumping though

>>71504945
Lol the Sistine Chapel was painted for the most powerful institution in the world at the time. It hugely reflects the views of the institution not necessarily a pure "innerself" of the painter. Not to say that this lessens the beauty of the piece, but it's still kind of a dumb distinction. It isn't really fair to compare a pop star to a institution with over a billion followers spanning millennia.

>>71512438
>without beauty, it's not art.
Well, since beauty is subjective, one could thing something that is ugly is beautiful. In this case, something ugly is art. Right?
>you can't be taught m8 if you say silly things like
I didn't think of the scenario, this guy did >>71503951 Is he not learning anything as well?
>I said SOME things are objectively appealing then you ask me why some people find things appealing and others don't.
Like what? Literally everything is subjective when it comes to things someone likes/dislikes.

>>71506961
Your moralizing is repulsive. The fact that you'd even want to change your opinion because someone comes off as a horse's ass is way worse than being insufferable.

File: Madvillainy_cover.png (121KB, 399x399px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 399x399px

Art is the skillful display of beauty

File: duchess.jpg (94KB, 400x565px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 400x565px

Not art or not ugly?

File: 2f6ebd172cccf8198e075ac4343123ca.jpg (72KB, 736x628px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 736x628px

>it's ugly?
>then it's clearly not art anon!

File: PicassoGuernica.jpg (101KB, 631x283px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 631x283px

>wow, this ((((painting)))) is so ugly!!
>it's definitely not art

>>71501644
Art has no definition in my opinion.

>>71505467
In a way yes, postmodernism, for all its vagueness, is fundamentally iconoclastic, and that's what terrifies reactionaries so much.