/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5854177]

https://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/Why_Realism/why_realism.php

>However, unlike the hundreds of spoken and written languages, the vocabulary of traditional realism in fine art has something which makes it unique, in one important way...the language of traditional realism cuts across all those other languages and can be understood by all people everywhere on earth regardless of what language it is they speak or write in. Thus Realism is a universal language that enables communication with all people and to people of all times...past...present...and future. Modernist and abstract art is not a language. It's the opposite of language for it represents the absence of language. And the absence of language means the loss of communication. It takes away from mankind perhaps our most important characteristic...that which makes us human....the ability to communicate in great depth, detail and sophistication. And in the case of fine arts modernism banished the only universal language that exists...realism with the techniques and skills required to achieve it. A knowledge which had grown and developed and was carefully documented and preserved as it was passed down for centuries from masters to students.

Abstract artists getting BTFO.

No seriously though, fuck abstract art. That article is brilliant. Read it.

[Anonymous No.5854204]

LOL this dude doesn't know a lot about art or he's really bad at expressing his thoughts

>the language of traditional realism cuts across all those other languages

what the hell does this mean? the language of realism?

>Modernist and abstract art is not a language.

what?

>the only universal language that exists...realism with the techniques and skills required to achieve it.

lol never mind that 'realist' (one of the most vague art terms) subjects are either from western lit or depict european modernity. universal indeed

[Anonymous No.5854219]

>>5854204
>what the hell does this mean? the language of realism?
>what?
Read the rest of the article, I just cut out a segment of it.

>(one of the most vague art terms)
He's talking about a visual style, which isn't vague at all. It's pretty plain in its definition. Realism: a visual style which presents its abstractions in a state which closely resembles life. Do you get how it's universal now?

[Anonymous No.5854273]

Art isn't only about communicating ideas. It's a visual medium that uses visual stimulation. Looking at art is first and foremost a visceral experience rather than an intellectual exchange of ideas. There is nothing inherent about abstract art that is inferior to realism in this regard. I can look at a Pollack or a Rothko and feel and think about things that a Rembrandt will not produce, and vice-versa.

[Anonymous No.5854280]

>>5854219
lol there aren't many people who are familiar with art history who use 'realism' as a term outside of the 19th c french style. probably because it's vague as hell.

>Do you get how it's universal now?

it isn't universal. it's a specifically western method of making art. it is used to depict western subjects that aren't universal. and art being a form of communication is not a universal function of art. he doesn't know what he's talking about because his 'philosophy' isn't consistent.

>Jackson Pollack

assuming this is a reference to jackson pollock, i don't know why he thinks his version of abstraction even applies to this artist. was jackson pollock attempting to communicate the physical properties/essence of a physical object (paper, as the word 'paper', for example) as something like a word? it just goes to show how little he knows about the purpose of abstract art. it's like he hasn't read a single book that tries to explain it

>disorganized shapes and color

disorganized?

lol fuck this i'm not going through this text

[Anonymous No.5854330]

>>5854177
If to view art as a product, which it is in this capitalistic money sucking society. Realistic art yields no profit compare to abstract/modern art.

To train a realistic painter takes time and dedication, no art school can teach and churn out a Leonardo da vinci, or Michelangelo, but they can spew out plenty Jackson Pollock. And these Pollocks spew out shit spray faster than anything, hence quick profit. Just have to bull shit people who can't critically think for themselves into believing it's art.

[Anonymous No.5854341]

>>5854273
I took a shit today, diarrhea, I smeared it over a canvas, blew on it to spread the froth, and I tilted at different angle to let the watery parts flow around, steaming across the canvas. Looks better than Pollack, if you'd like to purchase and feel and think about things that Rembrandt missed please email and [e-mail] smelling for only 10 bucks.

[Anonimaj No.5854367]

>>5854330
A lot of those Art Schools make painters that have a very good grasps on the technical aspects of art. They don't make 'realist' art because it doesn't interest them, it's that simple. Don't pretend like you've ever been in an Art School or understand what they do there (and the fuck ton of work they put into the techniques of their mediums), because it's clear you don't understand this.

[Anonymous No.5854381]

>>5854330
>there are human beings who actually believe this

just kill me now

[Anonymous No.5854410]

>>5854177
>autist detected

Btw., I love how BTFO, SJW, and Cultural Marxism have become so prevalent on /lit/ lately.

THANK YOU MOOT

[Anonymous No.5854415]

>>5854410
The terms I mean.

BTFO myself lmao XDD

[Anonymous No.5855848]

>>5854273
>There is nothing inherent about abstract art that is inferior to realism in this regard.
There absolutely is. Because all art is communicating an abstraction of some kind; both a Rothko and a Rembrandt are doing this. But the abstraction being presented in a Rothko is a hundred times simpler than a Rembrandt's because of its reduced amount of visual detail to the most basic shapes and solid colors, therefore it is also a hundred times less stimulating to the viewer as well.