/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17765737]

Books to help understand modern art? I appreciate the aesthetics of classical but can't wrap my head round most things modern.

[Anonymous No.17765751]

That's not modern art.

[Anonymous No.17765800]

>>17765737
I used to snub modern art, too. The Damien Hirst quote made it click for me.

Some Guy: "I could have done that."
Hirst: "Yeah, but you didn't."

[Anonymous No.17765809]

>>17765737
I've seen this one recommended before, though I haven't read it

[Anonymous No.17765825]

>>17765737
It just looks cool and that's all I care about desu

[Anonymous No.17765842]

>>17765800
>fuck standards of quality and excellence and actual artistic capacity to express something that is comprehensible to the human brain, we are all artists because we are all able to produce extremely insultngly below mediocre trash

[Anonymous No.17765863]

>>17765737
The Ever-Present Origin by Jean Gebser

[Anonymous No.17765864]

>>17765842
>comprehensible to the human brain

[Anonymous No.17765870]

>>17765864

[Anonymous No.17765872]

>>17765864
Soiboys actually disagree with his post and defend modern art

[Anonymous No.17765874]

>>17765737
If you can read French picrel has some kino essays about modern art, especially Raoul Ubac and Balthus. I'm not a fan of contemporary art either but Bonnefoy's sensibility makes it so I can understand why some people would like it. There are also essays about poetry, Baudelaire, Valery, the Quattrocento, baroque architecture, etc. It's good but it's hard to follow at times (mainly because of Bonnefoy's erudition).

[Anonymous No.17765875]

>>17765842
>quality and excellence and actual artistic capacity
you're conflating artistry with art. art is for everyone. being a pretentious twit doesn't impress anyone.

[Anonymous No.17765882]

>>17765737
You just have to understand it's a scam.

[Anonymous No.17765887]

>>17765842
The human brain is pathetic and we shouldn't pander to it. The moment art is understood it becomes kistch.

[Anonymous No.17765904]

>>17765737
Contemporary art is closer to theory than to art. And, as >>17765751 said, thats not modern art.
If what I said doesn't like you, well, you are right, no one like it because is bullshit. Theorycels "embeded" themselves inside art before WWII ended and cybernetics started to be a topic in theory; then, when postmodernism couldn't be leeched out, they just flee from art and aesthetics, leaving art in what it is rn: a dead corpse rotting in the trash.
Philosophers were jews to art, just as US was a jew to culture.

>>17765737
>Some Guy: "I could have done that."
>Hirst: "Yeah, but you didn't."
That says nothing at all bout art, but about "doing", as tu guy go do your mom.

[Anonymous No.17765914]

>>17765875
>It's not about the technique, it's about the content, which can only be transmitted with quality technique
>Upholding the quality technique that allows for impressive art to be created is pretentious, but creating trite childish trash and only pretending it has value is not pretentious at all

[Anonymous No.17765916]

>>17765904
Contemporary art is the only art that isn't bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17765941]

>>17765737
>>17765842
I really don't like what this does to people. It should be funny but it isn't. It seems like the only reverence our society allows and indeed demands is for (often literal) shit. It's the sort of thing that makes one believe in the devil.

[Anonymous No.17765948]

>>17765941
>It seems like the only reverence our society allows and indeed demands is for (often literal) shit.
Modern art is a niche thing and most people (i.e. midwits) would agree with you.

[Anonymous No.17765952]

>>17765941
>>17765948
You might feel more at home here: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7vijlh/cmv_modern_art_is_just_pretentious_rubbish/

[Anonymous No.17765958]

>>17765948
>if you are not introduced into 15 layers of dogma that struggles against reality at everys second you are a midwit.

[Anonymous No.17765967]

>>17765948
You sound like a pseud.

[Anonymous No.17765968]

>>17765958
Yes you are a midwit. Go back to your romantic kitsch, no one is forcing you to stare at modern art.

[Anonymous No.17765969]

>>17765948
Sure, the public has good instincts. Given that we are surrounded and educated by the dazzling beauty of nature it requires a considerable amount of indoctrination to pull something like this off. I do appreciate that in technical terms.

[Anonymous No.17765987]

>>17765969
>the dazzling beauty of nature

[Anonymous No.17765989]

>>17765914
>>17765914
>>17765941

I'm going to tell you a secret. The difference between people who actually care about art, both consumer and artist, and people who just masturbate about being an intellectual, is that they can see the artistic value in things they don't personally like.

Ultimately, art in all its forms is communication, and humans are constantly trying to find new ways to say the same things.

[Anonymous No.17765997]

>>17765800
doesn't impress me.

[Anonymous No.17766003]

>>17765737
read contemporary art publications, read contemporary critics

[Anonymous No.17766007]

>>17765969
>the dazzling beauty of nature

[Anonymous No.17766010]

>>17765968
>Yes, you are dumb because you're able to see reality for what it is rather than being blinded by my obscurantist mental gymnastics over why these scribbles are very meaningful

[Anonymous No.17766014]

>>17766007
stick your dick in that

[Anonymous No.17766018]

>>17765969
>>the dazzling beauty of nature

[Anonymous No.17766021]

>>17765997
neat

[Anonymous No.17766027]

>>17765989
That's not a great revelation to anyone even marginally interested in art.

>>17765987
Nature can be funny. Another thing modern art is incapable of.

[Anonymous No.17766028]

>>17765969
>the dazzling beauty of nature

[Anonymous No.17766036]

>>17766027
>That's not a great revelation to anyone even marginally interested in art.
I am fully aware.

[Anonymous No.17766045]

>>17765989
I don't like post-expressionism, or cubism, or even too much of surrealism, but they are decent enough that you can identify that at least there was an attempt use technique and medium to create something, to transmit an idea through the form.

With abstract expressionism or "post-modern art", there isn't even an attempt to use the forms and techniques to transmit the idea, just the white noise of a schizophrenic mind on the canvas and the explanation in a different piece of paper.

[Anonymous No.17766077]

>>17766028
All of this is ignorance. Observe it from afar or up close and worlds of wonder await.

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

[Anonymous No.17766098]

>>17766077
Nothing about this is traditionally beautiful, in fact, the closer you look the more abstract it gets.

[Anonymous No.17766150]

>>17766098
It's not about 'traditional art' just art. Something that isn't insulting its audience for example.

[Anonymous No.17766276]

>>17766045
>With abstract expressionism or "post-modern art", there isn't even an attempt to use the forms and techniques

Forms and techniques are guidelines, not rules, and in "legitimate" art (i.e. art for the sake of art, not fame or money) the creation of it is much more, if not entirely for the sake of the artist. It doesn't have to make sense to the observer, much less coherent enough to be articulated.

Personally, I don't even really try to articulate what it is about a piece of art that I like, because ultimately, I'm reacting to what I call "a plucked string." There's just a string in my chest, and when I see a piece of art that resonates with me, it feels like that imaginary string has been plucked. Sometimes it's clear why. Sometimes it's something I can point to it and say; that's why. Sometimes it's something much less concrete. I have a broad spectrum of art that I enjoy, too. From Rubens to deep-fried memes. And if a piece of art doesn't pluck my string, it doesn't mean it's not art.

As far as I'm concerned, trying to quantify art is futile. And the only real metric we can go by is our own personal "string". That's it.

Anyway, here's one of my favorite paintings:
from Phil Hale's Life Wants to Live series

[Anonymous No.17766277]

>>17765737
Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde

[Anonymous No.17766280]

>>17765737
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.17766345]

>>17765737
My background: I studied Art History through evening courses for a year at my local university while working, and have a strong interest in art.

I don't want to sound condescending, but seeing as you asked for resources on modern art and attached an image that is definitely not an example of modern, but rather contemporary art, I am going to assume that you know basically nothing.

Before you even dive into essays on contemporary art, you need to learn the basics. Prime yourself by watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1irNBh2qg8&t=259s

After that, my recommendation is to check out the book "Art: The Whole Story" and start reading from the pages covering the 1700s and onwards. It is far from the most nuanced or extensive book on art history, but the big selling point for you is that it is concise. It will help you get a grasp on art quickly.

Once you feel more comfortable with the art world, you can enroll in MoMAs free course on contemporary art here: https://www.coursera.org/learn/contemporary-art

By then you should be able to look for more info on your own, but let me know if you want any more pointers.

Also, as a general rule, remind yourself to try to keep an open mind. You don't have to like everything you see, but sometimes the reason why you don't get the hype for something is because you don't know the backstory. As an example, when I first came in contact with Duchamps "Fountain" I thought it was all bullshit and couldn't understand how all the "art snobs" had been fooled into thinking it was something. Then someone told me the story behind it and it made me reevaluate my opinion. The short version is that there was this group called "Society of Independent Artists" who tried to break free of the academic traditions of the early 1900s. They planned an exhibition where anyone could submit their work and put it on display for six dollars. The motto of the exhibition was "No jury - no prizes", and Duchamp (who was on the board of the society) basically went "oh yeah, no jury you say? really?" and submitted this factory-made urinal under the name R. Mutt. Despite the fact that there was not supposed to be a jury, they ended up not displaying his work because it was deemed to not be art. By submitting his work, Duchamp basically called them out on their bullshit and showed that they weren't any better than the academic institutions they claimed to oppose.

So yeah, try to look up the history for art pieces you don't initially like. Sometimes you will change your mind, other times you will still think that it is just nonsense. But then you at least tried to change your mind, and that is the important thing.

Good luck.

[Anonymous No.17766374]

>>17766276
That is a very nice painting, but what you are referring to is basically what I said about those modernist movements I mentioned. They use technique to create whatever they so desire without being restrained by any rule set of what they are allowed to make, but what they make is ultimately found to have value within objective standards of quality.

Each person is free to enjoy whatever piece of art they feel the inexplicable cerebral enjoyment people get when they look at art,, but when we observe that most people are naturally inclined to find a Caravvagio painting to be beautiful and admirable and the scribbles of Cy Twombly to be just pretentious, insulting childish masturbation, then we conclude that we are naturally or even consciously inclined towards works that require effort and actually portray beauty to be considered good.

[Anonymous No.17766380]

>>17766345
You should tolerate the colloquial usage of the term since you know what is meant.

[Anonymous No.17766397]

>>17765904
>Art is only good when it may as well be a photo
It is you retards that reject anything skill in meticulous detail who denigrate art. You yourselves have obviously never tried to make art, either. Maybe you should talk to some artists instead of reeeeeing

[Anonymous No.17766412]

>>17766345
Not OP but I have that book, it sits right in front of my knees under the table I use my computer on. For anyone interested, it's a mega-summary of the entire history of art that gives two page-descriptions of the techniques and styles and history of an art movement and then moves to the next. Informative enough for you to get an overall idea of each historical movement since pre-history to contemporary street art, but if you want to know more you will need to do more research of your own.

[Anonymous No.17766424]

>>17766374
There are no objective standards of quality. How do you quantify a piece of art being "objectively good"?

[Anonymous No.17766428]

>>17765737

[Anonymous No.17766432]

>>17766424
>There are no objective standards of quality
People actually believe this

[Anonymous No.17766439]

>>17766432
>avoiding the question

[Anonymous No.17766443]

>>17766424
Caravaggio good

Cy Twombly shit: https://gagosian.com/media/images/artists/cy-twombly/YQei_jvc1z9C_585x329.jpg

[Anonymous No.17766449]

>>17766424
Too simple and exactly what led to people throwing trash on the floor in a museum and all the pseuds in here would've stared at it as well and tried to look as in the know and amused as possible.

[Anonymous No.17766455]

>>17766443
What makes the Caravaggio painting good and what makes the Cy Twombly bad?

[Anonymous No.17766463]

>>17766439
What's better, Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 or John Cage's 4:33?

[Anonymous No.17766469]

>>17766463
What makes Beethoven's 9th better than Cage's 4:33?

[Anonymous No.17766470]

>>17766439
Read this book >>17766428
Good is subjective to some extent, dependent on the time and place, but each culture had objective standards of beauty (that interestingly enough overlap to a large degree because they're innate to the human experience). Developed use of technique and mastery of harmony (natural proportions) are the most common. A culture that has no objective standards is not a culture.

[Anonymous No.17766477]

>>17766455
One is an actual painting that actually portrays imagery, and does so with almost hyperrealist zeal and control over shadows that remains unmogged to this day, the other was scribbled my a grown man pretending to be 5 years old

[Anonymous No.17766482]

>>17766443
I think Artemisia Gentileschi is much better than Caravaggio

[Anonymous No.17766493]

>>17766380
Honestly, people can refer to art periods however they want. I don't go around in daily life and correct people when they refer to contemporary art as modern. Neither would I correct someone if they referred to Shostakovich's works as "Classical music". But OP asked a question about art on an anonymous internet forum so I don't care too much about how I express myself, and I wanted to clarify how I interpreted the original question and why I gave the advice that I did in my reply.

[Anonymous No.17766497]

>>17766477
>One is an actual painting that actually portrays imagery
Why is this good?
>and does so with almost hyperrealist zeal and control over shadows
Why is hyperrealism good?
>the other was scribbled my a grown man pretending to be 5 years old
Why is this bad?

[Anonymous No.17766513]

>>17766482
It's difficult. I don't like the Caravaggio either (compared to his other work) but there's just something about Judith there. The Gentileschi focuses on the wrong subject even when the composition is better.

[Anonymous No.17766516]

>>17766477
I like this one

[Anonymous No.17766520]

>>17765800
Wow wtf

[Anonymous No.17766536]

>>17766497
Because art is about recreating the highest form of expression of humanity, doing what a 5 year old could do is not that. How do you explain the historical phenomenon of art and beauty if you could consider a turd art following your unending subjectivity?

[Anonymous No.17766539]

>>17765800
>>17765952
>https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7vijlh/cmv_modern_art_is_just_pretentious_rubbish/
>So much pre-Modern art means practically nothing
is this guy retarded?

[Anonymous No.17766540]

>>17766497
>why are baby-level random scribbles not on the same level of the works of a master who can create aesthetic imagery resembling reality itself with control over shadows and color that peaked in his craft?

[Anonymous No.17766553]

>>17766497
Retards itt eternally btfo by three simple questions.
If someone is actually interested in art it's impossible not to see the value of abstraction or expressionism. You may dislike certain works, but saying things like 'modern art is shit' is simply stating how clueless you are.

[Anonymous No.17766559]

>>17765987

> animal suffering explosive decompression is ugly.
Big if true.

[Anonymous No.17766570]

>>17766553
Read >>17766428

[Anonymous No.17766574]

>>17766469
If we're ranking what makes it a better piece of art, I'd argue things like harmony, composition, and originality. But if you think the 9th is just as good as the absence of sound, all the power to you. Everything is subjective after all and these arguments are inherently pointless.

[Anonymous No.17766578]

>>17766553
refer back to >>17766010 then commit suicide

[Anonymous No.17766585]

>>17766540
You have to see it for what it is. Mediocrity demanding a seat at the table. If there are no rules there's no need for taste or talent. They take a notion that in principle is true and expand it beyond anything resembling sanity.

[Anonymous No.17766586]

>>17766513
>Gentileschi focuses on the wrong subject
You mean the BEHEADING? The Gentileschi version is more brutal and visceral. Caravaggio is much more theatrical, like a stage-play.

That's already where the issues arise. The same moment of the same scene, both technically masterful paintings, but we could still argue all day about which is better.

[Anonymous No.17766598]

>>17766536
>Because art is about recreating the highest form of expression of humanity
This is an opinion, not a fact.
>doing what a 5 year old could do is not tha
This is an opinion, not a fact.
>How do you explain the historical phenomenon of art and beauty if you could consider a turd art following your unending subjectivity?
Because art in the past was nothing more than imitation of nature, until we ran out of things to imitate.

[Anonymous No.17766600]

>>17766570
Yeah and bring your fedora and reddit account with you, pseud.

[Anonymous No.17766607]

>>17766586
That doesn't mean there are no objective criteria. Everyone is aware of a degree of subjectivity, that's isn't the issue. See this here isn't as good as Shakespeare: §HO(RU§(=OB"$hjef,24f31fhifwrbnqlnvrjlafsö
And you would be utterly retarded if you thought so, yet you could defend it on the exact same principles you use for visual art. What is it, doesn't this one speak to you? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.17766613]

Behold! I have produced art!

[Anonymous No.17766616]

>>17766585
>Mediocrity demanding a seat at the table.
Wrong. It's the attempt to make money, and people assuming that the art world still has the integrity.
People who don't know better just assume there must be something they're missing.

[Anonymous No.17766624]

>>17766613
congrats! you have created, and you have a message you have conveyed! Technically it is art, you rascal.

[Anonymous No.17766625]

>>17766598
>This is an opinion, not a fact.
No, it's a fact when viewed throughout history.
>This is an opinion, not a fact.
No, it's a fact, a 5 year has not had time to develop technique.
>Because art in the past was nothing more than imitation of nature, until we ran out of things to imitate.
We didn't run out of things to imitate? And where do you base that opinion on that art was nothing more than imitation of nature? That's not what an artist in the past would have told you.
>>17766600
I hope this is bait, retard

[Anonymous No.17766629]

>>17766624
When do I get my 1 million dollars?

[Anonymous No.17766632]

>>17766428
Reminder that modern art was invented by art critics in the early 20th century in order to launder money; their names are Greenberg, Rosenberg and Steinberg,

[Anonymous No.17766636]

>>17766598
It was a fact that art was supposed to be the highest form of expression in the Classical sense, until the standards had to be lowered to that "experimental" alcoholics could have some shot at calling themselves artists and producing what a child on 5th grade could have made with a canvas and ink

It IS a fact that the scribbles of a baby are not art, no technique, no form, no content, no standards, no effort and no goal, not even worth it to be looked at twice

>Because art in the past was nothing more than imitation of nature, until we ran out of things to imitate.
Repetitive cope for modernist tards, why not start depicting themes of science fiction and fantasy if you are underwhelmed by the depiction of the reality around you? Why devolve the form and technique to the level of a babbling child? Because everything needs to be dragged down to the level of animalistic incapacity, below even mediocrity, so that the ideas of hard work and excellence don't hurt the feefees of the untalented, and the philosophical concept of objectivity doesn't hurt the butts of post-modern faggots

[Anonymous No.17766638]

>>17766629
oh you sweet child. don't you know? most artists make fuck-all.

[Anonymous No.17766642]

>>17766585
That pic made it click for me. Post modern art can be and is anything because we live in our own little worlds. Once we put a meaning behind something we have personalized it and made it our own. Modern art, in it's absence of meaning, put all the work on the individual and therefore we are the artists and the artwork is ours. If you see a classic piece there are walls of intent and skill and possibly things like jealousy between you and the art. With glasses on the floor there is nothing. That art is entirely yours because "I could have done that" and now the only blank to fill is the meaning. The scammers are not the artists, it's the critics who try to impose their meaning on your art.

[Anonymous No.17766652]

>>17766638
unless they're friends with a rich pedophile

[Anonymous No.17766658]

>>17766636
So art should stay the same forever? We shouldn't change the concept of art not even 500 years into it? We need to see repetitions of this >>17766443 forever and ever?

[Anonymous No.17766664]

>>17766625
>And where do you base that opinion on that art was nothing more than imitation of nature?

Is this bait or are you just dense? Of course all art before the first abstract painting was merely imitating nature, because if it wouldn't it would by definition be classified as an abstract piece.

[Anonymous No.17766665]

>>17766658
Art has never stayed the same, you absolute retard, but its underlying principles have. Until modernism.

[Anonymous No.17766670]

>>17765737
>modern
>>Probably means post modern
>classical
>>Probably means academic
Get Art in Theory 1900-2000. It's a fat ass book with manifestos and contemporary reviews and theory, divided by movements and ideas. It'll tell you why everyone thought anything was a good idea.

[Anonymous No.17766679]

>>17766664
Did you forget about depicting mythology, smoothbrain? That's not imitating nature but also not abstract. You call me a baiter while you're doing nothing but throwing bait, soulless bugman.

[Anonymous No.17766680]

>>17766665
Isn't it possible we have exhausted everything we could do with those underlying principles though?

[Anonymous No.17766683]

>>17766658
If you presume that evolution and devolution are the same thing, then yes. There is evolving and then there is regressing back to the fetal stage.

[Anonymous No.17766686]

People only respond to my comments when I insult them :(

[Anonymous No.17766690]

>>17766680
No? Why would you think that?

[Anonymous No.17766693]

>>17766397
>Art is only good when it may as well be a photo
I didn't mean to say that. I wanted to say that artists became more worried about doing representations about philosophical polemics than to enrich and develop the artistic field.
And I'm an artist, btw.

[Anonymous No.17766705]

>>17766690
Why is there no modern Caravaggio or Da Vinci?

[Anonymous No.17766716]

>>17766705
Because we're a culture in rapid decline that has been convinced by Cultureberg that everything can be art? You need actual culture to produce great works of art.

[Anonymous No.17766728]

>>17766716
Surely there are many people that think like you and make art though?

[Anonymous No.17766732]

>>17766705
Not him, but what do you mean? What would qualify someone as a modern Caravaggio?

[Anonymous No.17766737]

>>17766607
>What is it, doesn't this one speak to you?
Yes, but not for the reasons you're assuming I do (I assume). I am extremely disinterested in the subject. I do love the smooth surface and the soothing color. Its technical execution is fantastic, I am much less impressed by its artistic value.

[Anonymous No.17766739]

>>17765737
modern art is just money laundering no deeper meaning involved

[Anonymous No.17766740]

>>17766732
>What would qualify someone as a modern Caravaggio?
Someone that would make something of the "objective quality" of this >>17766443, but modern.

[Anonymous No.17766742]

>>17766705
There are plenty of hiperealist or "neo-classical" painters nowadays that the arts establishment ignores in favor of abstract expressionists

[Anonymous No.17766745]

>>17766652
>fingerguns
exactly

[Anonymous No.17766753]

>>17766728
Sure, but to be a modern Caravaggio or Da Vinci you have to be appreciated by the culture, and that is actually being stifled because Cultureberg has convinced people anything can be art. Art is an interplay between artist and audience after all.

[Anonymous No.17766755]

>>17766679
Mythology you say? You don't think the gods of Olympus imitated nature in any way?

[Anonymous No.17766756]

>>17766686
same. it's exhausting

[Anonymous No.17766767]

>>17766755
We were talking about the artists, not the gods. The gods are obviously beyond nature. Don't dodge the question.

[Anonymous No.17766794]

>>17765987

[Anonymous No.17766795]

>>17766755
Everything ultimately replicate nature and reality because it is reigned by nature and reality, like an abstract expressionist painting may replicate if by accident the look of "water flowing" or something like that, only because the physical behavior of the ink is similar to this of water

[Anonymous No.17766811]

There's nothing to understand.

It's a mental illness.

[Anonymous No.17766817]

>>17766811

[Anonymous No.17766835]

>>17766740
Are you one of the people who figure Delacroix and Courbet have nothing to do with modernism because all realists are caravaggisti, and therefore could not be modern even if their work is appearing after 1845 and marking a large shift away from the religious?

[Anonymous No.17766838]

modern art has so much more diversity, its wrong to think of it as a singular movement. compared to the past, everyone is doing their own thing in their own niche. you have to find your niche.

[Anonymous No.17766839]

>>17766559
>suffering explosive decompression is ugly.
Do you really think this is a valid excuse for your behavior at the park?

[Anonymous No.17766856]

>>17765737
Sir Herbert Edward Read: A Concise History of Modern Painting.

[Anonymous No.17766857]

>>17765737
Don't bother with modern art. Read Spengler. Art simply isn't possible anymore.

[Anonymous No.17766870]

>>17766857
That is somewhat prophetic isn't it? I would say it's still remotely possible in literature and music I couldn't explain why though.

[Anonymous No.17766882]

>>17766767
Pre-modern artists painted in relation to the forms of nature, even if the subject was beyond nature. That changed with modern art, which opened up the possibility of art that didn't represent anything at all, it just was.

>>17766795
I agree. Just like how a cloud might look like a dog or something But I believe that modernists certainly pushed the boundaries for how far art could be distanced from the objects of nature.

[Anonymous No.17766899]

>>17766585
I'm actually moved by the idea of glasses on a wood floor facing me with an all white backdrop. I feel like I would stop and look for a long time. The symmetry of the glasses, the simplicity of the background, the foreboding aura... A fragile piece of human ingenuity, wholly undisturbed on a plane below it's station where it usually finds only destruction. Placed there - purposefully? An accident? What has happened to it? What will happen to it? It stirs something in me but I don't know what or why. There might actually be something to this modern art thing or maybe I'm just a dimwit

[Anonymous No.17766912]

>>17766899
Is it interesting? Sure. Is it art? Of course not.

[Anonymous No.17766926]

>>17766899
>>17766912
..
>>17766642

[Anonymous No.17766927]

>>17766912
Lol, according to which definition of art??

[Anonymous No.17766928]

>>17766912
If it is created by another person to elicit an emotional reaction and it succeeds in doing so then by definition it must be art

[Anonymous No.17766929]

>>17766629
art itself is not the same as the artmarket.

[Anonymous No.17766931]

It's a CIA invention. And, like all things created or influenced by the CIA, it's an abominable failure. It's main practical uses are money laundering and providing an outlet for completely talentless people who want to LARP as artists. Ignore modern art and modern art shills as much as possible.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html%3famp

[Anonymous No.17766932]

>>17766928
Was the Holocaust art

[Anonymous No.17766938]

>>17766932
Hitler was an aspiring artist

[Anonymous No.17766941]

>>17766938
yeah, and he sucked

[Anonymous No.17766946]

>>17766927
Any pre-20th century definition of art.
>>17766928
No, that's not the definition of art.

[Anonymous No.17766949]

>>17766932
It's an art source there's no denying that

[Anonymous No.17766955]

>>17766941
No he didn't, he wasn't amazing but still pretty decent
>>17766932
kek

[Anonymous No.17766960]

>>17765737
art died with modernism
honestly the fact that I'm living during an artistic void makes me wanna kms, just slowly waiting until my parents die so I can finally off myself instead of wasting my time in an artless world where I'll never experience a da Vinci or Beethoven. my generation is worthless

[Anonymous No.17766965]

>>17766955
it's boring and derivative.

[Anonymous No.17766967]

>>17766931
Based and truthpilled
>>17766929
Cultureberg disagrees

[Anonymous No.17766973]

>>17766965
That's an opinion. Like I said, it's not amazing but still pretty decent. I bet you're also the kind of person that says MK sucks because you don't like the subject matter.

[Anonymous No.17766974]

>>17766928
Well it succeeded in doing eliciting an emotional reaction, so the second criteria is fulfilled. Why is the artist’s intention part of the definition?

[Anonymous No.17766977]

>>17766932
No because you can't sell the Holocaust

[Anonymous No.17766978]

>>17766946
>Any pre-20th century definition of art.
Yeah no shit, idiot.

[Anonymous No.17766982]

>>17766932
Biggest piece of performance art ever made.

[Anonymous No.17766986]

>>17766960
Visit the Louvre you idiot

[Anonymous No.17766987]

>>17766978
You know, when actual art was still produced, instead of pooping on a floor and calling it art, smoothbrain.

[Anonymous No.17766990]

>>17766973
Ugh. Michael Kors is so fucking trashy.

[Anonymous No.17766998]

>>17766987
when was the last time you went to a modern art exhibit?

[Anonymous No.17767001]

>>17766986
I want to experience artists of that caliber in my lifetime anon. I dont give a shit about the Mona lisa, I just want something as good to be made in my lifetime and by my generation instead of endless nigger and tranny worship and talentless garbage
Imagine saying "yeah I was born after 1900" and being anything but dissapointed and cursing the gods for sending you to this hell on earth

[Anonymous No.17767013]

>>17767001
How often do you visit art galleries? Are you, honestly, really looking?

[Anonymous No.17767014]

>>17766960
You're not depressed enough. These artists were produced in dirt poor societies with tiny populations. Technically we should be able to produce at least dozens and possibly hundreds of that caliber. But hey, who needs Shakespeare? We have Rupi Kaur.

[Anonymous No.17767016]

>>17766998
Shortly before the rona hysteria kicked off, a friend of mine makes modern "art"

[Anonymous No.17767019]

>>17767001
500 years in the future no one (if humans still exists) no one will rmemebr anything made past modernism or it will but will be seen a a joke, as a dark ages of art. Just absolutely pathetic. What a pathetic time to live in. Its no wonder depression and suicide keep raising exponentially. All it takes is watching a Wagner opera to realize the world has gone to shit

[Anonymous No.17767026]

>>17767001
Hey anon, would the Mona Lisa still have had the same impact on you if it wasn't critically regarded? What if you just found it in a shitty art gallery in Alabama or something?
Well guess what retard, people are still making great art. And some of it's in the Louvre too. You've just been brainwashed by culture war bullshit and it's clouding your reality. Stupid cunt

[Anonymous No.17767031]

Anons who say art is dead don't even know art. They would not have appreciated renaissance era art. Your 'tastes' are simply edgy trad reactionary takes.
If you know art at all, even with classical obsession, you'd still find art that suits that taste today. Yet you faggots don't know anything. Blatant rejections simply based on year made. Disgusting
Imagine being that much of a philistine I'd straight up kms

[Anonymous No.17767036]

>>17767014
I'm depressed enough. Like I said I'll kill myslef when the time comes. Just want to take a big shit on this awful age while I'm still alive. fucking Jews destroyed culture. God I wish I could kill them all

[Anonymous No.17767045]

>>17767026
Whatever you think of the Mona Lisa (there's an objective reason it's regarded the way it is), it's still more impressive than any piece of modern "art".
>Well guess what retard, people are still making great art. And some of it's in the Louvre too.
Post some examples then
>You've just been brainwashed by culture war bullshit and it's clouding your reality. Stupid cunt
You've just been brainwashed by Cultureberg swindle and it's clouding your reality. Soulless retard

[Anonymous No.17767067]

>>17767031
>>17767031
All great artists were appreciated in their time, stop propagating Jewish lies

[Anonymous No.17767075]

>>17767036
Being as weak as you are I'm surprised you haven't already done it
Actually being as weak as you are, you'll never do it
Keep crying like a bitch you stupid child

>>17767045
>asking to be spoonfed
Lmfao

[Anonymous No.17767081]

>>17767045
I'm not talking about modern art you illiterate fuck. Go outside fag

[Anonymous No.17767093]

>>17767067
Were they really though? I can think of half a dozen classical artists that didn't receive any widespread recognition until after their death.
Not to mention the plebs still had a strong disdain for the the elites culture, which included art.

[Anonymous No.17767094]

>>17767026
>>17767031
That is the point, subhumans, people are overlooking excellence and quality that is still being produced nowadays in favor of post-modernist baby-level trash for the sake of easier money laundering and pushing post-modern philosophical ideas that there is no such thing as objective quality or value to things.

[Anonymous No.17767104]

I fucking hate Jews. I fucking hate Jews. I fucking hate Jews. I will never get tired of saying it. I fucking hate this pedophilic satanic cult of EVIL vermin. I swear to God I will give myself the pleasure of stomping a kike's head in before I off myself. If there's any relief it's that they're all burning in hell. Every single one of them.

[Anonymous No.17767117]

>>17767075
>asking to be spoonfed
You're the one claiming there's good stuff, prove it, or I'll just assume you're talking out of your ass
>>17767081
Even disregarding modern art my point stands, smoothbrain. You call me illiterate while lacking reading comprehension yourself, the absolute state of retards.

[Anonymous No.17767129]

I find it funny how a lot of the depressed retards in this thread who don’t know shit about art keep talking about how it was better back in the old days. Bitch, your plebeian ass wouldn’t ever be exposed to those ‘masterpieces’ because they would be hanging in private collections. There has been no better time to live in than today for an art lover thanks to the internet.

Not a fan of the contemporary art which the elite is throwing money at today? Guess what, you don’t have to buy it. Why do you even care what other people think about art in the first place. Go to museums, find out what type of art you like and start googling. There are thousands of artists selling their work online catering to any genre that you can think of. With a few clicks you can actually become a patron of art and support the style you prefer. So stop crying over post modernist glasses and actually show love for the art you claim you adore.

[Anonymous No.17767131]

Can't believe the brainlets that post on /lit/, honestly

>Classic art good because pictures are pretty!!
>Modern art bad because pictures not pretty!!
You've probably never been to a single art gallery in your life, read a book on art, even properly looked at art. You've seen a few images on Google and think you're qualified to comment on hundreds of years of art. You know less than nothing.

[Anonymous No.17767133]

>>17767094
>people are still overlooking
Yeah, those people are the plebs itt crying about waah waah I was born in le wrong era
Well too bad faggot if you were born in the 17th century you would hardly have access to any art. Nowadays you can look at everything.

[Anonymous No.17767134]

>>17765737

[Anonymous No.17767137]

This is the legacy of modernity. This is our "great art*. Jesus christ I just want to puke. Why was I cursed to be born in this age full of shit

[Anonymous No.17767139]

>>17767067
Pick up a book retard, the list of great artists that died poor and unappreciated is long

[Anonymous No.17767141]

>>17767117
>there's no good stuff!
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.17767142]

>>17767131
>good because pictures pretty
>bad because pictures not pretty
that is indeed how it works

[Anonymous No.17767147]

>>17767094
> people are overlooking excellence and quality that is still being produced nowadays in favor of post-modernist baby-level trash for the sake of easier money laundering and pushing post-modern philosophical ideas
No shit
Didn't realize the true value of art was it's monetary value and critical recognition.

[Anonymous No.17767152]

>>17767137
>great art
Its just a graffiti mural mate, no one says it's the height of art except for you.

[Anonymous No.17767153]

>>17765737
>yet another """"muh art"""" thread populated by trad retards and pretentious culturelet philistines, and identical to every previous thread of the same disposition

[Anonymous No.17767154]

>>17767142
Maybe if you're a dimwit.

[Anonymous No.17767155]

>>17767141
Are you actually retarded or are you just trolling?
Just post what you consider good modern art

[Anonymous No.17767157]

>>17767129
>>17767131
>>17767133
YES GOYIM!!!! CONSOOM OUR ART!!!! EVERYTGING IS SUBJECTIVE!!!! CUT YOUR DICK OFF GOYIM!!!! CONSOOOOOM

[Anonymous No.17767158]

>>17767153
>yet another angry commie

[Anonymous No.17767170]

>>17767045
>>17767026

I think the Mona Lisa has more art historical value than anything. It was when paintings began to speak to us on an intimate level or something like that. It's just not that impressive when you see it since we've had the experience so many times before. It's not a bad symbol for art in general though.

[Anonymous No.17767171]

>>17767154
I bet you're so smart that you pick the ugly girls

[Anonymous No.17767172]

>>17767141
here >>17767104

[Anonymous No.17767174]

>>17767157
Lol, cutting out the shadow.

Also, take your meds

[Anonymous No.17767177]

>>17767158
far from it, anon...

[Anonymous No.17767194]

>>17767177
Run of the mill pseud then, ok.

[Anonymous No.17767200]

>>17767170
> It's just not that impressive when you see it since we've had the experience so many times before
No it's more the fact that you're surrounded by 300 retarded Chinese people and have to look at a small painting from the other side of a large room. The reason it's so highly regarded is because of its ambiguity, which requires developed technique. But you're right that it also has much art historical value.

[Anonymous No.17767202]

>>17767170
>It was when paintings began to speak to us on an intimate level or something like that

Lol, no one gave a fuck about Mona Lisa until it was stolen.

[Anonymous No.17767206]

>>17767155
This isn't even done by a real artist btw

>>17767157
Nice non comment

[Anonymous No.17767208]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN ART IS OBJECTIVE??? WHAT DO YOU MEAN STANDARDS??? THATS RACIST GOYIM TYRONE JUST CANT MAKE A CARAVAGGIO AND THATS A GOOD THING!!! EMBRACE DIVERSITY!!! WATCH PORN SINCE THATS ART TOO!!!!

[Anonymous No.17767209]

>>17767171
I bet you choose your favourite album based on the cover

[Anonymous No.17767211]

>>17767194
i am a professional artist with an MFA, gallery representation, and i teach art courses at top east coast private colleges. that said, i simply don't care to take the time to educate you pigheaded retards on this fine spring evening.

[Anonymous No.17767212]

>>17767129
These idiots also don't care about art. They just want to go back to an idealistic time that they never know.
They have no knowledge and no interests in visual arts other than to mischaracterize it and then use it as an example of why they world is bad and it's not their fault they're depressed and worthless.

[Anonymous No.17767217]

>>17767209
i choose it based on if the sounds are pretty

[Anonymous No.17767218]

>>17767206
>This isn't even done by a real artist btw
Yes that's quite obvious. How is that good? It's the visual arts version of schizo ramblings.

[Anonymous No.17767219]

>>17767208
The fact you have this saved on your computer is just... Oh wow. I don't even know what to say.
You are a degenerate.

[Anonymous No.17767223]

>>17767211
>(((professional artist)))

[Anonymous No.17767226]

>>17767129
>>17767212
Shalom!

[Anonymous No.17767232]

>>17767218
>materialist bugman cant appreciate or understand transcendent experiences
>materialist bugman instead wants pretty picture that's easy to look at
Oh lmfao it just gets better and better

[Anonymous No.17767235]

>>17767202
I'm talking about its position in the history of art. Lots of paintings get stolen, no one gives a fuck.

[Anonymous No.17767236]

>>17767212
THIS
/thread

>>17767226
>b-b-b-b-ut muh jews took everything from me
cope faggot

[Anonymous No.17767239]

>>17767211
>triggered

[Anonymous No.17767241]

>>17767219
What do you mean? It's art. Why are you being racist? You need to decolonize your taste sweetie

[Anonymous No.17767243]

Can't believe the amount of mongs present on this board. I thought /pol/ was supposed to be a containment board?

[Anonymous No.17767248]

>>17767226
This is lit, not pol. We use words here not memes.

[Anonymous No.17767258]

>>17767157
You disingenuous cunt.

[Anonymous No.17767259]

>>17767243
the pimpled, greasy, basement dwelling huns have spilled over from the accursed shores of /pol/ and ruined our fine board ages ago... where have you been anon?

[Anonymous No.17767262]

>>17767241
Please stop forcing your disgusting fetish upon us, it's filthy.

[Anonymous No.17767264]

>>17767232
That's not a transcendent experience, that's a demonic child having a drug-induced fever dream.
>materialist bugman instead wants pretty picture that's easy to look at
Your pilpul tricks don't work here schlomo, there is no pre-20th century piece of art that's not also pretty to look at. Even something like Bosch is visually appealing despite what it depicts. I really hope you're just baiting.

[Anonymous No.17767271]

>>17767211
Being credentialed in the degenerated environment of contemporary art can't be perceived as a good thing among the crowd here. If anything that makes you suspect.

[Anonymous No.17767276]

>>17767208
>>17767241
you're really mad about dicks, huh

[Anonymous No.17767277]

>>17767236
>>17767248
Mazzeltov!

[Anonymous No.17767280]

Honest question. Can anyone here name a current visual artist?

[Anonymous No.17767283]

>>17767271
as if i care what these philistines think. hence my lack of desire to explicate art to these mental toddlers.
>>17767280
i am personal friends with dozens, but will not dox my friends in this accursed place.

[Anonymous No.17767285]

if anything is art, than we have no need for art galleries or art storage. There is no difference between created art, or imagined art. If it's all some abstract phenomelogical construct than what difference does an art gallery on fire make. That's no less art.

[Anonymous No.17767291]

>>17767283
cope

[Anonymous No.17767293]

>>17767264
>materialist bugman gets mad once his outsed as a materialist bugman
Lmfao better and better

[Anonymous No.17767300]

>>17767280
Yes, LeShawna DeQuayron. She's a brave and strong trans artist and this is xer masterpiece: "For George Floyd"

[Anonymous No.17767301]

>>17767259
I stopped visiting /lit/ and /his/ a while ago and it seems like both boards have been taken over by underage rightoids. It's a shame.

[Anonymous No.17767305]

>>17767293
Begone

[Anonymous No.17767307]

>>17767283
oh fug bros he said explicate instead of explain, we are outgunned here

[Anonymous No.17767311]

Isn't there more feeling, more reflection to be gained when art is destroyed rather than created? Perhaps the true artist seeks to destroy as much art as possible to raise the value of art that remains, to the deepest possible reflection on the true essence of what once was

[Anonymous No.17767319]

>>17767206
>>17767232
>transcendent experiences
What is that painting supposed to depict?

[Anonymous No.17767327]

>>17767280
Here's another. "ACAB Fuck Trump" by Mary Goldbergshekelstein.

[Anonymous No.17767334]

>>17767206
Isn't this a Bladee album cover

[Anonymous No.17767336]

>>17767285
What do you think galleries are for?? They curate art. It doesn’t matter that everything is art, because they sift through all the shit and pick the shit they find interesting. If you don’t like it, find another gallery win by someone who has more similar taste to yourself. Very simple.

[Anonymous No.17767339]

>>17767336
>muh free market
Ah yes so the jews decide what is art huh? Fascinating.

[Anonymous No.17767341]

>>17767334
Kek I thought the same thing

[Anonymous No.17767345]

>>17767336
*run by someone

[Anonymous No.17767351]

>>17767327
Anon it's not normal to have this many black dicks saved in your pc

[Anonymous No.17767353]

>>17767283
Plenty of idiots here and also a lot of people who just think modern art is insane. A disgrace to our civilization. Something that will be laughed at in the history books of a better future. That's btw mainstream opinion. You're a laughing matter even today and your reaction to that is 'Oh these philistines!'. You understand that this has never before happened in human history. Utter contempt from the public for what you do. They think you are talentless charlatans and so will the people in the future. That's your role in existence. Doesn't this bother you? Apparently the public was able to identify practially all great artists in history, but not you guys. You're just that good. Every single one of you a visionary, a van Gogh.

[Anonymous No.17767362]

>>17767301
it sucks, /lit/ has basically become an outpost of /pol/. that's why it's important to viciously shame and exclude natshit retards wherever they rear their dysgenic, butthurt and non-sex-having visages.

[Anonymous No.17767363]

>>17767334
nah just a painting

[Anonymous No.17767370]

>>17767133
people are not overlooking actively you imbecile inbred, the channels through which art get spread to the public are eschewing quality in favor of shit as an organized psy op

> 17th century you would hardly have access to any art.
historically illiterate dog, art back then was utilitarian and made for the people to get an idea of religious tales

[Anonymous No.17767371]

>>17767362
>>17767301

[Anonymous No.17767372]

>>17767351
It is if you are a trad reactionary apparently

[Anonymous No.17767376]

>>17767351
>NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND I'M DOING IT TO OWN THE LIBS

[Anonymous No.17767377]

>>17767362
>to viciously shame and exclude
This doesn't work outside of the social circles of teenage girls or those who behave like them

[Anonymous No.17767378]

>>17767336
If everything inside a gallery burns and the gallery itself. Doesn't this lead to people reflecting and thinking on the art more? What difference does it make anyways when everything is art, that this one place where people go to see some art burns. In fact it can be said there is more art to be had from art's destruction than it's creation or preservation.

[Anonymous No.17767382]

>Oil painting
>Strong individual
>Traditional values
Be honest you post modernist trans cuck retards, something like this would never be allowed in a museum today.

[Anonymous No.17767387]

>>17767353
KEK. you invoke van gogh without realizing he was shamed and considered trash in his own day, dying penniless and unknown. the avant-garde is called such for a reason; it advances into new territory while midwit mainstreamers are still trying to make sense of work from 25 years ago.

i'm not saying all of contemporary art is great or something, most of it is garbage and is rightly critiqued, which i do often. but please know your art history (up through the 20th century, which trad idiots like to pretend never took place) before indiscriminately shitting on everything contemporary. you just look like the uneducated pleb you are, and it's sad.

[Anonymous No.17767390]

>>17767387
That's why I invoked him.

[Anonymous No.17767395]

It would be cool to have a thread about art without the /pol/ brigade shitting all over it and sperging out about Jews. This literally happens in all of them.

[Anonymous No.17767399]

>>17767387
based retard

[Anonymous No.17767400]

>>17767395

[Anonymous No.17767413]

>>17767400
>>17767395
I wonder when the /pol/tards will realize their rhetoric is identical to the ressentiment and simplistic identity/grievance politics that characterizes idiots like BLM and antifa, only inverted.

[Anonymous No.17767416]

>>17767382
yep. a master for a reason

[Anonymous No.17767420]

>>17767387
Finally some sense in this degenerate thread

[Anonymous No.17767426]

Da Vinci could never make something like this, chud. It's time to forget about all these dead white men.

[Anonymous No.17767430]

>>17767413
Their rhetoric is like Malcolm X, not blm. They want separation, not for Jews to give them gibs

[Nemo !!GgBWHLRiayD No.17767435]

>>17765737
1. If you are referring to products of hypermodrnism, you mean: "contemporary antiart", not: "modern art".

2. No book will endow you with discernment, nor with the ability to appreciate what is ugly —which is absurd—, but, if you aspire to be a garbageman, some may help you with neatly sorting the trash.

[Anonymous No.17767438]

>>17765887
You should cut out the part of your brain that makes you call classic art kitsch and run it over with your car

[Anonymous No.17767445]

>>17767435
he means art made in modern times

[Anonymous No.17767449]

>>17767426
we know you're the black cocks guy. you ain't slick

[Anonymous No.17767450]

>>17767413

[Anonymous No.17767451]

>>17767378
Yeah Banksy already came up with that idea with his shredded painting

[Anonymous No.17767455]

>>17767445
modern art ≠ conceptual art ≠ contemporary art.

if you actually use the term 'modern' to describe art being made in the 21st century, it simply reveals the profound extent of your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.17767456]

>>17767426
Fuck you even if you are being ironic. That is NOT art

[Anonymous No.17767461]

>>17767241

[Anonymous No.17767464]

So brave. This is real art. Strong.

[Anonymous No.17767466]

>>17767456
>posts a deviantart "oil painting" that took approx 3 hours to make in photoshop
anon, i....

[Anonymous No.17767467]

>>17767455
No it means art made after 1945 (but some before too)

[Anonymous No.17767472]

>>17766629
whenever some millionaire socialite (likely (((jewish))) ) needs to hide their money from the taxman

[Anonymous No.17767473]

>>17767464
https://youtu.be/QT13kk8HDDo

[Anonymous No.17767474]

>>17767455
The word modern means 'relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past'.

[Anonymous No.17767475]

>>17767467
kek. retard.

[Anonymous No.17767479]

>>17767451
I mean why stop just there. Why not bring out the art into the streets. Let's push this anything is art. Why not turn into a riot. Why not launch the nukes just to see what we feel at the end of it or something. There is so much we can do when drenched in subjectivity. Why an art gallery when you have the streets.

[Anonymous No.17767481]

>>17767466
That's an... that's an actual oil painting...
Why is art dead again?

[Anonymous No.17767485]

You WILL appreciate the artists of your time. You don't want to be cancelled do you?

[Anonymous No.17767490]

>>17767456
>>17767466
you're moving goal posts.

[Anonymous No.17767497]

>>17767475
It was a joke, anon. (Or was it?)

[Anonymous No.17767499]

>>17767455
You have to differentiate between the genre and the colloquial usage. The public does not differentiate into genre in this regard and that's the language we use and everyone knows what is talked about. Every other pseud here makes that point as if it were some great revelation to the rabble that is criticizing your nonsense. It's called the principle of charity in argument, you never go for the cheap shots which in this regard only looks like pseudery anyway.

[Anonymous No.17767504]

>>17767485
https://youtu.be/QT13kk8HDDo

[Anonymous No.17767517]

>>17767382
>>17767456
These posts were both by me, made ironically.
The first is a 2020 oil painting made by a woman, the second a 2020 oil painting made by a jew. I don't know anything about art. I just google'd oil painting 2020 and found some nice stuff. Obviously there is going to be a lot better out there.

[Anonymous No.17767524]

>>17765809
These Routledge guides tend to be pretty good. Haven't read this one either, but did read some during undergrad.

[Anonymous No.17767530]

>>17767499
I'm not even trying to argue seriously with these losers; I'm just shitposting to rile them up, anon. Don't tell me how to argue.
>muh common parlance
Conflating modern art and contemporary art is like the calling any infectious disease "cancer." It's simply untrue and it reveals your utter ignorance of the subject. That's all.

[Anonymous No.17767532]

>>17767517
do you want a cookie

[Anonymous No.17767534]

>>17767479
I certainly get enjoyment from watching nuke detonations on YouTube so in a sense, yes it could be art. But why the fuck would art galleries not be important if everything is art? It is the opposite. The more subjectivity there is, the more you need curators. If only a few paintings qualified as art you wouldn’t need galleries in the first place, because there would be nothing to curate.

[Anonymous No.17767543]

>>17767534
watchout boys we've got a high-iq anon here

[Anonymous No.17767544]

>>17767530
imagine not knowing what the word modern means, how embarrassing

[Anonymous No.17767550]

>>17767530
>I'm not even trying to argue
>continues arguing

[Anonymous No.17767549]

>>17767532
Just thought I should point that out to not add anymore idiocy to this thread.

[Anonymous No.17767560]

>>17767517
Here's one by a black hyperrealist, pretty cool imo. Is there a place to find more art like this that isn't google?

[Anonymous No.17767566]

>>17767544
I’m sure you would agree that nazis are socialists, since socialism is in the name. Right?

Or, your sense head could realize that a word can mean different things depending on the context. In art, modern is not the same as contemporary and you are just making a fool out of your self by trying to claim that that is the case.

[Anonymous No.17767567]

>>17767550
No, he's not arguing. He's stating a fact that he's 100% convinced about and there is nothing left to be said because that is the Truth.

[Anonymous No.17767573]

>>17767517
People actually can differentiate between art quality and they also understand that more traditional forms exist. The only people you would be fooling here are teenagers. It's completely besides the point. We're talking about the standards within the art establishment where you could shit on the floor and then ride a unicycle while pouring period blood on your face (for the 10000th time) but what you posted would in general be laughed at. As if their disgusting expression is even in any way superior.

[Anonymous No.17767579]

>>17767534
Fuck curators. Who are they to say what's art, right? What makes someone adequate to determine what art is or isn't. What gives them the right or privilege.

You can democratize art. Bring it right to peoples door steps. Let them reflect on a world beyond their understanding. And at that point anything is permitted. Our definition is loose enough that there is no distinction between an event and that event being 'art' or a following event that sprouts art from it. Once anything is permitted, we can really test the contemporary sensibilities of most artists who are oh so 'free'.

[Anonymous No.17767582]

>>17767560
Art galleries once covid lets up, I guess. I don't know much about visual arts.

[Anonymous No.17767583]

>>17767566
>art from the year 2021 is not 'of or relating to the present'
based time traveler

[Anonymous No.17767588]

>>17765800
That's like valuing the first post in a YouTube comment section as highbrow literature.

[Anonymous No.17767590]

Posting more cool stuff to mitigate the black dick spam.

[Anonymous No.17767595]

>>17767566
>I’m sure you would agree that nazis are socialists, since socialism is in the name. Right?
Anon, I... Nazism was founded on socialism, but also influenced by nationalism and fascism. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
Also read >>17766428 which makes the case that all art since modern art has been variations on the same non-principles.

[Anonymous No.17767598]

>>17767560
That's not even a good one but the genre seems quite pointless doesn't it? It's artistically not as convincing as impressionism even.

[Anonymous No.17767602]

>>17766737
I hope people like you won't make it during the civil war. Your brains need to be removed from the genepool

[Anonymous No.17767603]

god i hate brainlets so much it physically hurts me

[Anonymous No.17767604]

>>17767590
That's not cool, that's terrifying

[Anonymous No.17767611]

>>17767579
Yeah that’s what people have been saying the last decades, what is your point?

[Anonymous No.17767613]

>>17767573
>The only people you would be fooling here are teenagers.
I think there are some people here who genuinely believe there all contemporary art is shit scribbled by a trans beaver, but yeah I hope they're teenagers.
>the standards within the art establishment
I agree that these are low and skewed. I'm just trying to point out that just because the "establishment" is trash doesn't mean that there isn't good art being made regularly. I mostly got annoyed at the anon who said they were going to kill themselves because of that when in reality they haven't even bothered to check.

[Anonymous No.17767614]

>>17767603
you don't have to hit yourself just because you're dumb jeez anon

[Anonymous No.17767615]

>>17767147
It is through the artistic establishment that the common man gets to know what is supposed to be relevant, otherwise the best vessel for the people to appraise art is through social media, where there often is approval for "old style" art, much like the common man often visits classical art museums rather than modern art museums, that exist for the sake of money launderers and art critics.

The ones acting as if money and mental gymnastics from critics are the first and foremost quality of art are the post-modernists of the world.

[Anonymous No.17767624]

>>17767611
If there is no difference between burning it down or building it up. Here is your torch. Anyone that's left can start over from sensible foundations.

[Anonymous No.17767648]

>>17765952
>"So much pre-Modern art means practically nothing"
redditors need to be tied up and beaten over and over

[Anonymous No.17767680]

>>17767613
I know it's a cliche but look at picrel, that's the competition for today's artists. In fact it's just some shit made by an ignorant person from a destitute society picked from a tiny pool of potential talent. If you're not churning this shit out on an industrial scale your occupation is failing catastrophically. You see now the problem is they don't even make one of those over decades. They're not capable of it. They do nothing. They're all Rupi Kaur and pretend to be John Milton. Something is terribly wrong and they smearing shit in their faces isn't a too subtle sign of that.

[Anonymous No.17767704]

>>17767613
Nah, it's the same argument as "there's still good music you just have to look fir it." That's the exact problem. Masterful art used to be at the cultural vanguard, now it's hidden away only to be found by those who look very hard, while literal trash is being displayed as high culture. It's signs of a culture rapidly declining.

[Anonymous No.17767735]

>>17767704
But don't you get it. It's all subjective or something. this doesn't mean anything. Art is flourishing today. Even though it's likely at it's most inaccessible and vapid. Shrouded in, it's whatever you think of it, or whatever some high end academic can rationalize which give enough time can be fucking anything.

Just like you can generate plausible post modern writings with a word generator

[Anonymous No.17767762]

>>17767735
Man and to think some of the retards in this thread actually think like this

[Anonymous No.17767780]

>>17767762
>The two walked down the slot canyon oblivious to the sound of thunder in the distance.
>Getting up at dawn is for the birds.
>The secret ingredient to his wonderful life was crime.
>Green should have smelled more tranquil, but somehow it just tasted rotten.
>He told us a very exciting adventure story.

Here's a postmodern short story just cut your dick off claim its an allegory for your transition and you'll make a million dollars

[Anonymous No.17767799]

>>17767780
Stunning and brave

[Anonymous No.17767808]

>>17765737
what do you mean by modern? I quite like abstract art but I dont know if thats what you mean.

[Anonymous No.17767826]

>>17767780
>After eating the sturdy meal and packing his school bag, Link wanted to get some last-minute reassurance from his friends. "Hey, Zelda, I need some advice." "Don't tell me you're already scared," Zelda frowned. "No. I just want some advice from someone who's been in high school already, and you're the smartest person I know!" Link smiled. Zelda let out a gentle laugh. "Thanks. Well, you� "The teachers are so strict that you're not even allowed to breathe!" interrupted the King with a wicked grin. "Huh?!" "Father!" the princess exclaimed reproachfully. "Sorry, go on." "Now, Link� She was cut off by the bus horn this time. "Oh, my bus must be around here now," said Link quickly, "byes!" "Beware of the meat hash surprise!" Gwonam seemed to have jumped out from nowhere. "Hey, don't get shot!" added the King, and both of them sniggered. Link was taken aback and looked
An incredible prose poem made by a trans black folx.

[Anonymous No.17767862]

>>17766045
>With abstract expressionism or "post-modern art", there isn't even an attempt to use the forms and techniques to transmit the idea
entirely false. many of the most well known abstract artist were also very capable in more traditional forms of art, and applied that too their abstractions.

[Anonymous No.17767877]

>>17767704
Then we're having different arguments. I agree that there is a cultural decay in the west but that's not the point I'm trying to make.
As long as there are artists making great art and they are capable of making great art, I don't really care if it's hard to find. Once it becomes impossible to find or they are unable to make it, then there's a problem. However, with the internet I don't think that is going to happen, and I don't think we're going to fall under a totalitarian rule that outlaws art any time soon.
Yes, popular art is shit and society is getting dumber by the day, but that's a symptom of bigger issues.

[Anonymous No.17767882]

there is more art and humanity to be had in that unique anime girl generator than in this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.17767891]

>>17767862
Fundamentally failing to convey the message or the content itself in a comprehensive form, which is the very job of the artist. In this case you can see that it is some sort of sexual imagery, but the artist's job is to use the technique to transmit the aesthetics to the viewer.

[Anonymous No.17767908]

>>17765882
This. It's literally money laundering for the rich, and a way to sell garbage to the nouveau riche

[Anonymous No.17767909]

>>17767680
>In fact it's just some shit made by an ignorant person from a destitute society picked from a tiny pool of potential talent
Bernini was a childhood prodigy and was taught by the greatest masters of his time.
>If you're not churning this shit out on an industrial scale your occupation is failing catastrophically.
We're talking about art, not Marvel movies.
>You see now the problem is they don't even make one of those over decades. They're not capable of it. They do nothing.
They (popular/acclaimed artists) are not attempting to make a Bernini sculpture.

Should the artists getting the most recognition be both technically talented and artistically creative? Yeah, I'd like that. But that's not how it is. I don't know why but maybe if someone would ACTUALLY RECOMMEND an art history book we could all find out. (because I'm guessing the reason is a bit more complicated than jews and trannies, like some people here suggest)

[Anonymous No.17767913]

>>17765737
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNa4VTq7zUw

Watch this guy's series of videos, they're excellent

[Anonymous No.17767942]

>>17767913
thanks anon

[Anonymous No.17767949]

>>17767877
>However, with the internet I don't think that is going to happen, and I don't think we're going to fall under a totalitarian rule that outlaws art any time soon.
You'd be surprised. I also disagree with your take on the availability, if culture keeps declining, less and less people will find the good art, and less and less of those will be inclined to make it themselves. The decline of culture and the amount of good art go hand in hand.

[Anonymous No.17767950]

>>17766345
that painting is infuriating, I am literally seething and gritting my teeth looking 1t it!

[Anonymous No.17767997]

>>17767949
>The decline of culture and the amount of good art go hand in hand.
That's a good point.

[Anonymous No.17768073]

>>17767909
You're not hearing me. There are 100 times as many prodigies today and practically nothing of value gets created. It's not just Bernini, it's all the greats that were produced in the past.
Of course the issues are complex. We don't even know what's going on. What I do know is that these pseuds in the industry and those defending them are full of shit. There's not some big secret that the common man doesn't get. They're just shit, and almost nothing will be passed to future generations and practially all of it film. Here too you could argue that's over with since the '70s. Well, whatever. At least we will make people laugh.

[Anonymous No.17768081]

>>17767450
Holly mackerel

[Anonymous No.17768238]

>>17767882
Kek, absolutely. This thread is a bunch of teenagers arguing about something they know nothing about.

[Anonymous No.17768286]

>>17768238
no I just think machines regurgitating humanity, are better optimizers than people who pretend to do 'art' when in reality they are just doing mental gymnastics because that's what academics have been trained to do. These aren't 'artists' they are university trained shmucks.

And the universities have been steadily becoming more and more morally bankrupt for the last 100-300 years. So fuck you too

[Anonymous No.17768417]

>>17768286
Oh I know. I don't care about technical skill in art and anyone who does probably thinks technical skill is magic. I want to be impressed by art, not because I see that somebody went to art school and learned technique, but because it expands my view of what the human mind and heart is capable of. I want to be reminded that some people are not photocopiers, followers, regurgitators, but are great minds with unique expressions.

[Anonymous No.17768542]

>Modern art us utter garbage! Why can't modern artists make great paintings like the old masters used to do!!!!!


Meanwhile modern art:

https://youtu.be/FsTnUDhONp4?t=120s

[Anonymous No.17768556]

>>17768417
Reminder that William Blake was considered bad art for his times and nobody went to his gallery opening.

[Anonymous No.17768570]

Reminder that the average manga artist is more technically capable than the great artists of the renaissance. If all you want is pretty pictures go read manga.

[Anonymous No.17768611]

There are a handful of artists today making great work, and their work will stand the test of time. Many others will rise and fall away as those who make shallow work tend to do. I feel that time brings the best stuff of every era to the surface somehow. And every art movement had a ‘bad’ counter-movement, let’s keep that in mind as well

[Anonymous No.17768619]

>>17768570
Oda-sensei

[Anonymous No.17768646]

>>17768619
Alternatively if you're into hyperrealism, just watch movies.

[Anonymous No.17768665]

None of you have seen a Cy Twombly exhibit in person, but I have, and they are not low effort or unbeautiful paintings in any sense. ‘Leda and the swan’ is quite awe inspiring in person. Zoomers only see images on a screen, not historic oil on canvas in the flesh, and are so impoverished for it.

[Anonymous No.17768864]

>>17766835
>Courbet have nothing to do with modernism
>The Origin of the World is not modern, but Olympia is
I love those people. You should imagine that almost every poster ITT could not tell you what Hall's dictionary is, and that they like The Oath of the Horatii despite that.

[Anonymous No.17769196]

>>17767258
actually good

[Anonymous No.17769456]

>>17765737
The more contemporary the art the more it can be considered "concept made material". It's as simple as that.