Can we agree in a mature way that Pollock represents the total

>>38395054
postwar american abstract painting was a CIA psyop

>expecting to have an intelligent discussion on r9k

File: 1500076884065.jpg (82KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 900x900px

>>38395054
I could do one of these too. Maybe I could do a few of these craps and get rich.

File: Rothko_No_14.jpg (759KB, 1323x1453px)

759KB, 1323x1453px

>>38395054
Can you stop talking about art you have only seen in pictures on the internet? The phenomenon of witnessing the work itself is the actual artwork.

Pollock is a very interesting artist, because in many ways this isn't something you would have seen otherwise. You would never consciously seen and actually closely looked at something like this. That alone makes it worth exhibiting the piece. Granted, Pollock imitators are a diamond dozen these days, but back in the day, this was absolutely amazing.
The patterns themselves evolve the longer you look at them, certain segments appear and disappear as you keep looking. Sure, you can dismiss it as random scribbling, if you want to do that.

The truth is that many such works appear insignificant at a glance on a small screen, but if you consider the time and actually closely look they all have some brilliance.
Rothko is a master at doing so much with so little. I mean, if you see this painting on a computer screen, it doesn't really look like a lot.
But when you actually see the real thing in front of you standing about 10 feet tall it is very imposing.

You can dismiss all of this as pretentious drivel, but at least consider it before you do.
Also, think on why such abstracting styles exist and why they are such a big thing ever since a certain technological accomplishment.

>>38395265
It's not just the Americans, the war was a very radical event in art around the globe.

>>38395380
You're decades late to make a quick buck off a shitty pollock imitation.

File: 1499803803174.gif (944KB, 500x658px) Image search: [Google]

944KB, 500x658px

>>38395397
If you think for a sec, all roasts and libtards that study arts on college are actually getting their degrees without any problem, let's be honest, any retard can get an art degree you just need to practice an hour and smoke weed with other normies. They just want to make it even easier by creating super low standards so they just need to practice 10 minutes in a day.

File: vir-heroicus-sublimis-1951.jpg (1MB, 1456x636px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1456x636px

>>38395397
indeed

I enjoythis one because of the spacial orientation it gives you between the zips. Makes me feel as through I'm immersed in the sea of redness floating between the zips.

>>38395477
An art degree is worth next to nothing.
Also, if you genuinely believe you study to copy other artists you are very mistaken. You do learn the photorealisitc styles in sketches and portraits, why do you think these """artists""" operate tourist traps everywhere?

And again, if you think there's a quick buck in low effort art, you should be quite disappointed.
You might want to try the 1910s and 1920s for that one. While abstraction, even to an extremely high degree like Rothko's does simplify the mechanical aspect of the painting, mechanics is far from the only skill you require to be a good artist.

>>38395502
This looks pretty shit, might just be some of that good old postwar wankery. But I have not actually seen it, so my opinion isn't too valid or relevant.

File: pepepe.png (144B, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

144B, 259x194px

>>38395596
Check out this pepe, I made it in 5minutes, on the technique I wanted to exploit the deep feelings of anger and sadness that are deeply rooted in the demon soul while at same time evoking the passion and the strength that lies behind the anger and hatred. I used a way to evoke this feelings through art like the Master before me. If you don't like it's because you just don't understand art you biggoted neckbeard.

>>38395502
What's the backwards writing? Looks like newspaper

>>38395248
>>38395397

You deserve the worst that life and death have to offer. I want you to know that somewhere, a stranger regards you with absolute hate for your deeply contrived and thoroughly cultivated stupidity.

File: 1499803246180.png (38KB, 160x160px)

38KB, 160x160px

>Throw shit at a canvas.
>No other meaning or emotion to the piece.
>basic and low effort.
It's all a scam by the few that know and the mongs which want to feel superior to the average man by attaching meaning to a meaningless piece so they can ride the high horse.
Also notice how majority of these artists are of Jewish heritage? They are the scammers and you are the mongs.

>>38395677
if I wanted to do something low effort with sadfrog xD, I'd just do some warhol knockoff, that would actually be vaguely interesting and offer some substance.

This is literally nothing, as I said you're decades late, if you had done this in the postwar times, people might have paid attention to you.

>>38395689
how is telling you to look at art in person, because it changes the way you look at it stupid?
That's all I've basically done, while adding some vague tidbits about the history of modern art.

>>38395783
define "meaning"
explain why meaning matters?
Nihilism is the biggest disease of the 20th century, it's been running rampant, especially during and after the wars.

>emotion
go see it in person

>attaching meaning to a meaningless piece
Why do you think the piece in the OP is called "No. 5"? Because it's the 5th one in a series.
Why are so many of these named extremely descriptively or simply?
To avoid attaching meaning, so the art stands as art alone. Especially in this expressionist movement there was no pursuit of meaning, it's just the image you see. Don't let shitty art teachers fool you into anything more than that.

Pretense you'll find in baroque art and the like. Painted in this extremely "sophisticated" style. It's very annoying to look at and quite frankly boring because it is very same-y.

File: kandinsky.comp-4.jpg (167KB, 1132x716px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1132x716px

You're objectively wrong if you don't think humanity's greatest artwork was produced in the early 20th century

>>38395054
have you ever seen one in person? it's really different when you see it in person. Actually pretty cool.

>>38395678
It's a shitty version of the image. The painting doesnt have that

Realist art in the modern age would be totally insincere, an art equivalent of "#tbt!!!"
Abstract styles are perfect for our age, it's easy to see why

>>38395903

I know a university professor who unironically believes that artists should have given up painting after Vermeer.

>>38395903
>objectively wrong

[citation required]

origano

>>38395989
>it's easy to see why
It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it for even a minute.
A device that made realism fall out of favor. If you look at art while maintaining a historical perspective it makes a lot of sense, similar to biology.

File: 2195092347659.jpg (30KB, 644x459px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 644x459px

Weird how commie countries produce the least degenerate modern art.

>>38396114
yeah it's almost as if cultural degeneration and capitalism have something to do with each other

>>38396114
This looks like really dull "the children are our future fuck women haha" imagery.
This is dull and basic shit. I see why it appeals to you

>>38395880

>how is telling you to look at art in person, because it changes the way you look at it stupid?

Scale doesn't do anything to validate bad art, it doesn't do anything to justify the betrayal of form, structure, detail or technique.

>>38396114
The Soviet Union produced outstanding art in all fields in the early years before they went autistic about anything that wasn't Socialist Realism.

>>38396184
Let's try something else because you clearly either do not understand or do not want to understand:
What defines a great work of art?
What is it that makes "art" into "art"?

File: 3245904733458.png (890KB, 510x922px) Image search: [Google]

890KB, 510x922px

>>38396150
This one sucks too right?

>>38396184
Are you saying scale and method of presentation are completely irrelevant to art? Looking at a Pollock or Rothko on a computer screen is like watching Lawrence of Arabia on a black and white, half inch camera monitor with no audio and saying it was an awful film.

>>38395397
>diamond dozen
Thats not how the idiom goes

File: 1493592374103.jpg (33KB, 356x425px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 356x425px

>>38395880
>define "meaning"
History behind it, emotions it evokes, the effort put into the piece, uniqueness behind it and finally the intentions of the artist.
All these things add meaning to art which makes art. Without meaning it is just a cool looking thing worth nothing.

>go see it in person
1. I'm not falling for the scam 2. scale and depth adds nothing to effortless shit

This thread is awful and art provides nothing but momentary escapism. It may be a more developed form of media than many others but, at the end of the day, it's just media to be consumed like everything else.

Fuck off, art isn't special.

The subject of his paintings doesn't matter.
What matters is the image that he's creating, and everything that he put into it.
Creating his art was his expression of pain and confusion.
But I don't know very much about him, more about his art.
All I know is my uncle told me not to touch one of his paintings in the museum because Pollock was known to urinate on his art.

>>38396255
The imagery is very different here.
Pay attention to how the child is looking at the man, not where he is pointing.
Obviously it is a well made statue, as evidenced by the folds in the fabric. But it's far from an interesting or exciting piece.
It's more interesting to look at it as a document of the times, rather than actually criticizing it as artwork.

>>38396286
I was really disappointed that it took that long for someone to catch it.

>>38396294
>History behind it
Ok, but you would actually have to care and not instantly dismiss it for being degenerate. Many of these styles have a lot of history, it's just that you don't want to accept it.

Why has realistic art fallen out of favor? Which device allows you to instantly create a realistic painting of landscape or a person? It might not be quite as good as commissioning an actual artist to do it, but it's so much cheaper and more convenient that it effectively killed the style.

>emotions it evokes
See it in person, I will keep repeating this.

>the effort put into the piece
Just because something appears to be low effort does not mean it actually is, but you can't understand that, can you?

>uniqueness behind it
Consider the times.

>the intentions of the artist
And you're calling modern art pretentious?

>scale and depth adds nothing to effortless shit
I can't do any more than tell you "please believe me", but since you won't do so, I will refrain.

>>38396396
I'm not surprised you have no retort to >>38396361

>>38396255
you know those were vibrantly painted originally? i think they look better blank.

>>38396396
What's the difference between art and motel art? It seems like anyone could be motel-artist but not real artist.

>>38396491
There is no "real artist," anon. If you draw a shitty stick figure you're as much of an artist as Picasso. Hell, you may even be a better artist for not trying these days and le postmodernism.

>>38395903

>You're objectively wrong if you don't think humanity's greatest artwork was produced in the early 20th century

When is your cutoff date?

I've been looking into some 50s/60s German/Italian art: Niemeyer-Holstein, Renato Guttuso (from the Corrente movement), Karl Heinz, Jakob.
I'm liking it so far.

>>38396461
I actually did not know that. Weird. I just looked it up and I am inclined to agree, the blanks do look better.

>>38396534

>Karl Heinz, Jakob.

Without the comma, that is.

literal CIA propaganda art: Modern art was CIA 'weapon'

Revealed: how the spy agency used unwitting artists such as Pollock and de Kooning in a cultural Cold War

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

File: final_configuration_of_iss.jpg (2MB, 4288x2848px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4288x2848px

>>38396396
yeh no, you wanna see some REAL modern art?
>pic fucking related

do you not see how fucking stupid it is to spend hours and millions of dollars looking at some splotches of paint when THIS is actually hurtling overhead at 17000 miles per hour, built by people from around the globe?

File: 1439362958279.jpg (379KB, 2194x1162px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 2194x1162px

is r9k art degenerate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME

>>38396435
I don't, really.
Why should I?
What do I do when I visit a museum?
I spend a few hours looking at art, then I go home.

It's just something interesting to look at, isn't it?
This is why I'm mostly interested in modern styles, I don't give a fuck about yet another realistic virgin mary with a skull in the background (memento mori lmao) or some jesus baby bullshit, biblical motives and all that, I'm sick of that.

>>38396491
What is "art" in the first place?

>>38396580
Craftsmanship alone isn't art, try again.

>>38396549
yeh they couldn't touch a modern miniature painter but the surly could sculpt like a mother fucker.

>>38396580
That's a perspective I hadn't considered before.
Thanks.

>>38396566
Who would benefit from modern art today?

>>38396614

>This is why I'm mostly interested in modern styles, I don't give a fuck about yet another realistic virgin mary with a skull in the background (memento mori lmao) or some jesus baby bullshit, biblical motives and all that, I'm sick of that.

You know what, I agree.
But Russian 19th century artists make even those look interesting and vibrant.

>>38396614
>Craftsmanship alone isn't art
yes it really really is, please tell me how this fucking miracle of engineering is not art without also telling me that Pollock's shit sputters also aren't art.

>>38396614
Aw, I was hoping you were going to spout off about how art is "important" and above other forms of media. Thanks for not rising to the bait.

Also how about a new series of the stations of the cross done in the neoclassical tradition? I like to paint but I know I'm not good enough to pull that off and am pretty sure bad paintings of Jesus may be blasphemy.

>>38396396
>Why has realistic art fallen out of favor? Which device allows you to instantly create a realistic painting of landscape or a person?
Taking a picture has no effort and can never be unique (since the picture is an exact copy of a scene)

>See it in person
Yet again. It's a money making scam.

>just because something appears to be low effort does not mean it actually is
There is no "appears to be", "maybe" or "actually". It's either low effort or not, and it is.

>And you're calling modern art pretentious?
I'm calling it a scam and a drug for the ego of the mongs.

>>38396614
>What is "art" in the first place?
Something with meaning created by man.

>>38396759
>something created with meaning

That's some dumb shit you wrote right there, but I know you won't be able to tell why for another ten or fifteen years.

>>38396614
>It's just something interesting to look at, isn't it?
>This is why I'm mostly interested in modern styles, I don't give a fuck about yet another realistic virgin mary with a skull in the background (memento mori lmao) or some jesus baby bullshit, biblical motives and all that, I'm sick of that
May as well just sit on your arse back home on the computer and browse art if that's all your going to do. Go on facebook, browse some epic le may mays since it's something to keep you busy.

>>38396780
>That's some dumb shit you wrote right there
Refute my definitions of art then. You can use the saying art is in the eyes of the beholder. You yourself define what art is and you would be right, but the fact of the matter is no amount of mental gymnastics and over thinking will make a piece of shit on the ground become anything more than a piece of shit on the ground.

>>38396780
okay define art
as far as i know there is no agreed upon definition in the art community, it's a personal thing. So how can you say that his definition of art is wrong?
>I know you won't be able to tell why for another ten or fifteen years
age does not produce wisdom, life experiences do that, so you saying he's just not old enough to get it, (even though he's likely a few years older than you, you art college freshman fuck) is definitely "some dumb shit"

>>38396721
>Taking a picture has no effort and can never be unique
But why would you comission someone to paint a portrait, when you can take a photo for a fraction of the price? Realistic art mainly existed to SHOW things. Portraits are images of people, again a camera can fulfill the exact same purpose at a fraction of the cost. I already explained this.

>Yet again. It's a money making scam.
All I got is "please believe me", so I won't even bother making it sound more fancy.

>There is no "appears to be", "maybe" or "actually". It's either low effort or not, and it is.
No, there is only what you perceive. You can't read the mind of the artist, you do not know how a piece was created. There is just what you think when you see it. Is that too difficult to understand?

>I'm calling it a scam and a drug for the ego of the mongs.
While being a pretentious sack of shit going on about "intended meaning", what are you gonna do, ask Pollock what he thought when he did No. 5?

>>38396798
>May as well just sit on your arse back home on the computer and browse art if that's all your going to do
No, because it isn't the same.
"please believe me"
This might sound incredibly pretentious, but the real thing has a certain "feeling" about it. It's different from a digital copy.

>>38396858
>the fact of the matter is no amount of mental gymnastics and over thinking will make a piece of shit on the ground become anything more than a piece of shit on the ground.
I wonder, have you heard of Andy Goldsworthy?

>>38396759
define "meaning"

>>38396673
The ISS is a machine built to serve a specific, objective purpose. It's not an expression of emotion. There's no room to interpret a spacecraft, and it's completely reproducible in the sense that an exact copy of the ISS made at a different time by different people is not different from the original in any meaningful way.

>>38396858
>>38396867

And here we go with the usual postmodern "I can't be wrong because everything is subjective!" bullshit.

Fuck off. Art is a static image on a material surface or the working of a material surface into an image, like in sculpting.

Image + surface = art. Not that hard, guys. It's okay not to be postmodern hipsters.

>>38396913
>Image + surface = art
very good.
but now let's make this a little more complicated:
What is "good art" and what is "bad art"?

File: 1497213125713.jpg (1MB, 3233x4373px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3233x4373px

>>38395054
I dislike Pollock's work too but only in the "this art is bad" way.
I don't hate modern art as a whole, but only this sort of shit created solely to make money.

>>38395989
Abstract art styles and other more experimental mediums are the only thing keeping painting relevant in the age of photography. Even presidential portraits are done exclusively with digital cameras now.

>>38396913
no, that's simply the worst definition i have ever heard. so you wiping your dick on a canvas is art but Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony is not art? you are a special breed of stupid you know?

>>38396938
Good and bad are concepts that have zero meaning outside of the viewer's experience when it comes to art.

I enjoy some of my daughter's terrible, just awful really, drawings more than I do what a lot of popular artists have put out.

Now we can frame bad and good when it comes to art by saying good art appeals to more people than bad art, but that's just propping up what one considers good art with the agreement of others.

Art cannot be bad like a tool can be bad. It serves no function outside of entertainment.

>>38396886
>No, there is only what you perceive. You can't read the mind of the artist, you do not know how a piece was created. There is just what you think when you see it. Is that too difficult to understand?
Unless Pollock was a fucking cripple, I don't think it takes much effort to slap nice colours on a canvas you spastic.

>No, because it isn't the same.
It is.
>but the real thing has a certain "feeling" about it
You said you just go to see some cool shit. Now you are now applying meaning to it in the form of emotion.

>I wonder, have you heard of Andy Goldsworthy?
I have. But he doesn't take shit and call it "art". It's some looking stuff and that's about it, he puts effort into it.

>define "meaning"
intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed.

>>38396949
>says someone who has never been to a galleria event

You do know that most small time artists put out pop culture mash-ups because that's what sells right now, yeah? Oh wait, the only art you've ever seen was in the public museum and in waiting rooms.

>>38396913
>Image + surface = art
That leaves out sculpture and music.

File: 1499113602962.png (371KB, 832x868px)

371KB, 832x868px

>>38396997
No, Tchaikovsky's 6th is music.

>tfw musicians try to elevate themselves above others by calling themselves artists too these days

>>38397003
>Good and bad are concepts that have zero meaning outside of the viewer's experience when it comes to art.
So you are implying it's subjective? You fucking post-modernist.

>>38397048
and literature, so Shakespeare and Mozart are less so artists than his daughter.

>>38397053
>musicians try to elevate themselves
i assure you that Beethoven was infinitely above you and Pollock in artistry.

>>38397084
Musicians and artists and authors aren't the same! We have different terms for each because they're different things.

GODDAMNIT HACKS NEED TO STOP HIJACKING THE TERM ARTIST JUST TO TRY TO GIVE THEMSELVES LEGITIMACY RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 13315361_285334165135883_5180163440877637397_n.png (57KB, 470x414px)

57KB, 470x414px

>>38397107
>GODDAMNIT HACKS NEED TO STOP HIJACKING THE TERM ARTIST JUST TO TRY TO GIVE THEMSELVES LEGITIMACY RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
But art is subjective.

>>38397019
>I don't think
See. You think, but you don't know.

>Now you are now applying meaning to it in the form of emotion.
How is that all that different?
Film is just "cool shit" too, but evokes emotion all the same. It's just a common characteristic in all art (in the broader sense).
Besides, I said I went to look at art, no more no less.

>But he doesn't take shit and call it "art".
No, but I figured it would be appropriate here, considering his work with natural and found materials.

>>38397003
Sure, but there has to be something about the art that shapes the viewer's experience. Surely, you can put that specific thing into words.
What characteristics does "your daughter's" art have that make you enjoy it so?

File: stalin32423.jpg (142KB, 854x600px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 854x600px

>>38395054
Daily reminder that Pollock was financed by the CIA in order to help fight against Socialist Realism.

>>38397123
>ee. You think, but you don't know.
I said I don't think. I don't think because I know. I know it doesn't take much effort to throw paint.

>Besides, I said I went to look at art, no more no less.
Fair enough.

>No, but I figured it would be appropriate here, considering his work with natural and found materials.
But he does something more with it. Puts in some effort, thinks about the patterns, the lighting, the colour, angle of the picture, etc...

>>38397107
>HACKS
i'm sorry, we have a word for "image + surface" it's called a painter, i assure you that the greatest composers in history were not hacks
>HIJACKING THE TERM ARTIST
again i'm sorry but you're really wrong there again an "artist" has always been someone who "cultivated one of the fine arts" within which both poetry and music reside.

>>38397203
Screw off. You playing on your six-string Epiphone doesn't make you an artist. It makes you a musician.

If that label doesn't make you feel special enough maybe take a swing at painting or sketching or sculpting so you can at least say you're an artist without it being a total lie.

File: 1497273570109.jpg (50KB, 640x632px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x632px

I am genuinely enjoying this thread. My shitposting feels like some form of actual discussion.

>>38397278
I also forgot to add another part to what gives art "meaning" or what makes art art.
Criticism and discussion, how it holds up to this. This thread is a prime example.

>>38397242
I'm not a musician nor an artist, someone who plays music is a musician, someone who creates music is an artist. Again history disagrees with you as there has never been a period where "artist" universally referred to only painters or sculptors. I am calling Chopin an artist because he created "works regarded solely for their beauty or emotional impact" these great men were artists, there is not a soul who anyone would pay regard to who would disagree. Also little tidbit, in ancient Greece, where the words "art" and "artist" originated, composers, musicians and poets were all considered artists, while painters and sculptors were not, they were in fact ridiculed and considered lesser people.

>>38397374
>>38397107
so i guess you could say
>GODDAMNIT painters NEED TO STOP HIJACKING THE TERM ARTIST JUST TO TRY TO GIVE THEMSELVES LEGITIMACY RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>38397374
>trying to use definitions from a culture that's been dead for thousands of years and a people who are so changed they've gone from white to brown

Is that the best you've got, anon? What a bunch of old dead fucks say?

>>38397448
well you could go with what the dictionary says, or what the supreme court says, or what the vast majority of society says, or what the vast majority of academia says, or what the vast majority of the art community says, I just thought you were going to say "the word art has been corrupted by post-modernists, muh historical context" but no, you went with, they are from a long time ago so they are wrong.
>who are so changed they've gone from white to brown
that's just not true? Mediterranean people have always had dark skin, where are you getting your info from? it better not be from renaissance painters else I've got a little something to tell you about Jesus.

>>38397448

>What a bunch of old dead fucks say?

not even him, but now I know you're either trolling or you have some unresolved issues with musicians from your childhood.

>>38397571
nigga was raped to the sound of Beethoven's Sonata No. 8
>No it's the musicians who are pathetique, not we the glorious, un-molested painters

>caring about art
physical reality is complete bullshit

>>38396614
>doesn't know what art is
>that thing is not art, try again lol!
fucking
retarded
faggot

>>38397714

I've been considering astral projection for a while now; no idea why I still haven't dedicated myself to mastering it.
Probably that "sunk costs" cognitive bias. I've already invested so much effort into this reality. What the fuck will I do with a whole new astral dimension.

>>38397751
I've done it for years. To be honest, I fall into a deeper depression each time. It's not entirely related to the experience itself, it's the fact that each time go back to this existence. It can be very "" enlightening "" though

>>38397835
Is it at least fun?
Can't you use it to help yourself in everyday life?