Why is Modern Art so Bad?

[=^.^= No.5885874]

So /lit/, is this guy a shitlord or is aesthetic relativism a load of bull? His criticisms can easily be leveled at our beloved Pynchon and the wave of transgressive authors from the past decades.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

[Anonymous No.5885903]

that was fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.5885912]

the funny thing is both of the pieces he uses for "artistic relativism" are fucking great. either he's trolling or he's very stupid.

[=^.^= No.5885924]

>>5885912
Well so is Thomas Pynchon but then you have assholes like Chuck Pahlaniuk. Loaded graphs and sentences notwithstanding, do you think the ages past had equivalents of The Legend of the Ten Elemental Masters or My Immortal or that long smash bros fanfic? It's widely known here that people have always read badly written pulp, but was there always bullshit of this magnitude?

[Anonymous No.5885931]

oh i get it, it's actually performance art making a satirical critique of the bad taste of the middle class who have to spend their university years on accounting, engineering, computer science and other kinds of vocational training rather than developing a strong foundation in art and aesthetics and so do not understand and moreover resent the advanced tastes of the ruling class.

[Anonymous No.5885957]

>>5885924
Yes. Information and art was just not as readily available.

[Anonymous No.5885963]

>>5885903
most modern art is fucking retarded

shitting on a canvas and calling it art, no thanks

[=^.^= No.5885967]

>>5885957
Do you actually know of any old timet works that could be compared to those monumental pieces of poorly written autism? I would genuinely like to see that.

[Anonymous No.5885974]

>>5885963
stay pleb, bro

[Anonymous No.5885986]

Prager University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytdMUddGe-U

[Anonymous No.5885989]

Prager University https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VBAEJlR4pk

[Anonymous No.5885991]

>>5885874

While I'm sympathetic with his views and I think most people would find them immediately appealing, it pretty much boils down to "muh prettiness". Essentially, he's saying if art isn't beautiful and wrought with autistic-tier perfection, then it is shit art.

When he started gently depreciating the impressionists he totally lost me. Aren't they precisely evidence that so-called classical artistic proportions, formulae, and methods, aren't required to create something with real beauty?

He also seems to take all (European) art in the Greco-Roman tradition as some sort of harmonious whole, which is also bullshit.

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5885994]

>>5885912
>the funny thing is both of the pieces he uses for "artistic relativism" are fucking great.

They are garbage.

[Anonymous No.5885997]

>>5885991
Prager. University. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886002]

>>5885991
>Aren't they precisely evidence that so-called classical artistic proportions, formulae, and methods, aren't required to create something with real beauty?

Impressionist paintings don't have real beauty. They have a vague prettiness . . . sometimes.

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886014]

Trying to justify contemporary art is like trying to justify contemporary morals. There's nothing to justify.

[Anonymous No.5886020]

>>5886014
Pls go back to not existing. Thank

[Deep&Edgy !!BfzNblz4cXS No.5886026]

I said all this on this very board and in a much better way in a copypasta 3 or 4 years ago

[Anonymous No.5886029]

>All those Trilby Kiddies in the comments

lmao

[Anonymous No.5886036]

>>5885994
but the way you can tell it's a troll is that ofili's mary is obviously in the tradition of the christian art of the middle ages, drawing inspiration from cymabeu and giotto; meanwhile the walldorf's petra is clearly imitating the naturalism and glorification of the state in ancient sculpture

face it, dude. you are just a confused pleb and should go back to your video games and cartoons, thanks.

[=^.^= No.5886038]

>>5885986
>>5885997
>>5885989
Oh wow I wasn't familiar with these guys. I just got this one, it goes full fucking retard

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S6HEH23W_bM

[Anonymous No.5886039]

>>5886026
Video is made to appeal to lowest common denominator who don't know anything about art history, theory or criticism and have never read a book in their lives

[Anonymous No.5886043]

>>5886002
>Impressionist paintings aren't beautiful

[Anonymous No.5886049]

>I don't like it so it's shit!

[Anonymous No.5886053]

>>5885924
Probably not, if you had the time and literacy to actually write something you're probably going to use it for something good. When something is a limited resource it's less liable to get wasted.

[Anonymous No.5886059]

>>5885912
The top is "The Holy Virgin Mary". It is painted with feces (Cow feces to be precise) and cut outs of vaginas from various porn magazinse.

The bottom is a police woman pissing herself.

The top is by definition garbage. The bottom might be "realistic", but it's still shitty because it lacks a key element of art: It doesn't evoke emotion.

[=^.^= No.5886067]

>>5886059
>It doesn't evoke emotion

Lmao

[Anonymous No.5886068]

>>5885924
It's not like Uli knows any better. Christ.

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886069]

To tell the truth, art itself is what is bad. Art itself is decadent. All of the decadence of contemporary art is present in Renaissance art, just waiting to be unleashed.
When Donatello sold his nude effeminate figure of David to an Italian nobleman, that was already a scandalous statement against morals and the start of an Epicureanism, "art for art's sake".
Art and literature are not essential to a noble form of life, despite what every propagandist of "culture" has said since the Renaissance. In fact, even literacy itself is not essential to a good life.

>Honest people use no rhetoric;
>Rhetoric is not honesty.
>Enlightened people are not cultured;
>Culture is not enlightenment.
>Content people are not rich;
>Riches are not contentment.

[Anonymous No.5886077]

>>5886043
>that brushwork
>beautiful
lmao

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886082]

>>5886036
>but the way you can tell it's a troll is that ofili's mary is obviously in the tradition of the christian art of the middle ages, drawing inspiration from cymabeu and giotto

Bullshit. That painting is blasphemous. To say it draws inspiration from cymabeu and giotto is disgraceful sophistry.

>; meanwhile the walldorf's petra is clearly imitating the naturalism and glorification of the state in ancient sculpture

It does not glorify anything, it is subversive for the sake of being subversive, just like the Mary painting. Subversion is a plebeian attitude.

[Anonymous No.5886088]

>>5886049
According to the OP image, it's literally shit.

[=^.^= No.5886089]

>>5886068
I like Ulillillia and I intend to read more of his website this weekend. I still wonder if there was ever old timey equivalents to his writings or the others I listed just out of pure interest.

[Anonymous No.5886093]

>>5885924
>smashbros fanfic
ohh shit can somebody pls post that one horribly autistic possibly postmodern sonic book. I wanted to show it to a friend but could never find it.

[Anonymous No.5886095]

>>5886082
Lol your repeating of that guy's weird spelling of Cimabue's name just shows you have no clue what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.5886098]

>>5886067
But it doesn't. It's a statue of a woman pissing herself. There's no back drop, no action, not motion. What emotion does it evoke?

Perhaps if she were pissing in the middle of a riot as fellow cops beat down protestors? Or if she were pissing on a person, perhaps in some "fuck the oppressive state!" kind of piece?

>B-B-BUT DAVID AND AUGUSTUS POINTING AND ALL THOSE D-DON'T INVOLVE ACTION
Correct, and this is another key difference: David and Augustus and all the old Greco-Roman pieces were made by hand. Petra was made by computer. David and Augustus celebrate figures from mythology and history, Petra was made solely to be controversial.

Contrast Petra with Washington Crossing the Delaware. There is background. There is context. There is motion. There is action. There was hard work requiring skill put in. None of these things are present in Petra.

[=^.^= No.5886107]

>>5886093
Are you talking about The Legend of the Ten Elemental Masters by Ullillillia? The main character is knuckles but its not sonic fan fiction. His website has a chart comparing the two.

[Anonymous No.5886109]

>>5886098
>What emotion does it evoke?
disgust
boredom
eye-rolling
laughter

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886115]

>>5886095
I admit I don't know who Cimabue is, but if he's associated with Giotto - who I do know about - he's obviously bullshitting. Giotto was using the best artistic techniques of his time to paint Mary in as good a light as he possibly could. This contemporary painting of Mary purposefully has chosen to neglect techniques that would beautify her image in favour of the most subversive techniques that could uglify it. To say that the latter is inspired by the former is a lie.

[Anonymous No.5886116]

>>5886109
And do people value those emotions? Do people ask themselves "What did people in [x time period] find boring"?

[Anonymous No.5886121]

>>5885924

The reason is that currently more people than ever can afford to write / paint / express themselves as they wish during their free time, and it is also often encouraged. Thus you have a world filled with shit, and, albeit self-publishing will become more prevalent, the role of publishers and critics and academics in discerning quality work will increase. But that is an unlikely ideal, for many of those people have other interests besides promoting aesthetically valuable works, particularly in the case of the publishers, who have to sell, and with most of the populace gaining their aesthetic sense mainly from rather weak, quality-wise, mass media they end up publishing garbage. There is a kind of change in the wind imo, with the golden age of TV bringing about more and more decent narratives and discussion to the forefront of consumer media, though it remains to be seen how far this development will go.

As for the video, it is slightly silly. Let's raise one often used point, namely the Pollock quiz. Art is always relative to the overall cultural and social background, and Pollock is a renowned artist in ours, which immediately gives anything attributed to him a sort of precedence over other works of art. This does not mean that everything by Pollock is automatically 'good', but that the scrutiny a work receives is of a different level. Add to this that it is a college professor 'examining' his grad students, and calling the painting good in the question (if you have an exam where you have to explain why something is good, the your own opinion does not necessarily enter into it, unless you have a very well thought out and detailed one, as the point could, at least possibly, be said to be to practice critique from a framework not one's own (as in, how could this picture be artistically valuable in some culture)) then it's practically a given that the students will take it seriously. The same could be said of almost any work of art prior to late 18th century, and ultimately the development of photography later on, that is, that to their peers their main function was description, not artistic expression. That is why, at least partly, technical and realistically detailed paintings became the norm. It takes a long time before a work of art becomes truly valued as such; even many of Shakespeare's plays were thought to be vulgar up until the later half of the last century, whence on pretty much all of them have been seen artistically valuable.

[Anonymous No.5886124]

>>5886115
Plus, y'know, the Mary in the picture is made of feces. As in, dung. As in, cow shit.

I'm pretty sure that's considered "Blasphemy".

[Anonymous No.5886132]

>>5886121

Ultimately, there is no universal standard. Art is always relative, and so-called 'ugly' works are only so if thought of from a romantic, or other such, perspective. I mean, does he really think that, for instance, Kandinsky's work is somehow devoid of technical and detailed expression? The early cubists, on the other hand, tried to portray something that was not possible via traditional norms, i.e., the actual perception of objects (that when we see one side of a person we naturally assume the other, and even 'see' it in our mind's eye. This accounts for surprises when the other side isn't what we expected, whether bruised, battered or otherwise malformed.) What they were doing was something that cannot be, at least in as straightforward a fashion as in the video, compared to what the renaissance artists were.

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886136]

>>5886124
Yes, I agree, and have said so myself.

[Anonymous No.5886146]

Why do art-fags get mad when someone has an opinion they don't agree with when it pertains to something subjective like artistic quality?

[Anonymous No.5886153]

>>5886132
>tried to portray something that was not possible via traditional norms, i.e., the actual perception of objects
but when i look at a normal painting i assume this as well

[Anonymous No.5886154]

>>5886146
Why do people with very strong opinions about things always perceive those who disagree with those opinions as mad?

[Anonymous No.5886156]

>>5886026
post it

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886161]

Let's receive a real education in art

Surrealism, an extension of naturalism, is art for hateful robots, an instrument of Jewish despotism, swindle and imposture… As an extension of imbecilic naturalism, and as the rod and pruning shears of the Jewish eunuchs, surrealism is the registry of our emotional disenfranchisement…the ground for our hecatomb, our communal mass grave for idolatrous Aryan cretins, duped and cuckolded on a cosmic scale… And then it’s an entirely done deal! admirably done…for mugs like us!… At surrealism’s door, long quivering with impatience, with reductionism, and with objectivism, to all of its degrees, all or nearly all of our great writers ceaselessly hone themselves down to the infinitesimal, to the loss of that “jingling bell,” to the loss of the very last bit of substance. Were they to continue to handle themselves somewhat badly, were they to apply themselves to fantasy, were they to be drawn into idealism or romanticism, there are those who would immediately and fatally so smooth them out, after so many analyses, as to put them on their way towards surrealism… That is to say those who are promoted, well positioned, and delirious with impunity, in the most astounding imposture of the age, whose aim is the stupefaction of the people and the bourgeoisie…by way of the amassing of meaningless frenzies, parasymbolic simulacra, and frenetic fraudulent wanking… All of these are jingling bells as well! …jingling bells!…not even real bells! but vile little jingling bells! for rabid little beasts!

[Anonymous No.5886164]

>>5886107
Yeah thanks a shit ton

[Anonymous No.5886167]

>>5886161
lets fuck you in the butt with nigger dick

[Anonymous No.5886169]

I won't even bother watching the videos, this discussion is tiresome. I study and teach art and one cannot land into this debate without knowledge on the subject. You guys should read a book on art for a moment.

All in all, there is no need to be pissed about the "art world", because you have grafitti, editoriial illustration, you have old women painting towels, graphic design, naive art, museums, schools... Whatever value you hold, you'll find stuff to see and stuff to do with it. If the arguments are just plain prejudice, there is nothing to be discussed. If the argument is "he uses cow dung instead of oil paint", there is no argument.

"Universal standards versus artistic relativism"??? What?

[Anonymous No.5886174]

>>5886154
>Hurr durr this isn't art xD

[Anonymous No.5886175]

>>5886156
probably this thread: >>/lit/thread/S1834597

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886176]

I don’t see anything among all these trinkets that might truly impassion us…that might revive so much as a single fly, a living fly, a fly that flies…the cause appears to me to be understood, Renaissance, naturalism, objectivism, surrealism, the perfect progression towards the Robotic. We are already there. As far as I’m concerned, everything is in admirable agreement. Baby rattles, childish games, Calvinists, “Vermouth” varnish. Baedekerisms, and an asshole. There’s no way to bring the water in this vessel to a boil. Assorted groups of mixed lanterns, croutons of sweetened textbooks, Latin-book hair curlers, “Translation” chickens in “measure” sauce with the entire box of nuanced garnish. Meaninglessness raised to the ten thousandth power. A show, a fair of eunuchs dressed-up as dildoes, with a big strong-box, a lantern, a can, a bladder, more soakings, and slices of recircumcised prepuces! There’s not one from among all of these vague motifs, these effronterous importunings, which has not been worked-over at least a hundred times and in all of its aspects, without ceremony, in vague high school recollections. All of these stories, these styles, these scenarios, these mannerisms are put into one’s head at school… Never occurring to a fellow in and of himself. They are nothing but so many alibis, so many parvenu pretexts, for the consolidation of careers, for irrational academic crazes, as ornamental knickknacks for wine cellars… Contemporary literature is a calamitous crumbling catafalque of phrases, acrostics and flubdubs, so dry, so chapped, that not even the maggots come to swarm upon it any more, a cadaver with no tomorrow, lifeless, ghostly, an oozing without color and without horror, more disheartening, more repugnant, a thousand times more disappointing than the most rank, most stark, most bloated, most oozing carrion, a literature in sum more dead that death, infinitely.

[Anonymous No.5886177]

>>5886146
Depends on the art fag.

The first kind gets upset with criticism because it makes them feel like they aren't good enough. If they were smart they'd learn from criticism and improve. Not ALL criticism is good, obviously, but some is and by at the very least disproving certain criticisms ("No, I can't paint it in x color, as the color I used is for y deep and meaningful purposes") can bring about clarity and improvement.

The second kind gets upset because they are making "art" solely to sell it. There is no love for their craft or an attempt at betterment, they just churn out whatever their dealer says will sell. Many great artists did their craft for money, yes, and that is not the same as this second kind of artist. The great artists of yesteryear sold their art because it was the only way anyone would see it (And, y'know, artists need to eat). With every painting they improved. They didn't paint to be "controversial" or "break boundaries". The king wanted a painting of himself with a twelve foot dick and by god the artist would make the best damn dick anyone had ever seen. Criticism offends this second variety of artist because it decreases they are worried it decreases their products value. They don't give a damn about what people think about it so long as they get paid, and if people start saying "You could have done better if you did x" then people will pay less for it.

[Anonymous No.5886179]

All expression I don't like or agree with is bad

[Anonymous No.5886182]

>>5886153

I'm not too good with the wording, Hintikka discussed the matter in-depth in one of his articles. Point is, roughly, that the cubists were trying to portray the empirical process of observation, not the end result which traditional painting did. So, early cubist (later on people just utilized the overall style for whatever) could be said to have attempted to portray what happens right before we actually end up with an observation.

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886185]

The ideally, truly cleaned-up Human, about whom all of the literary artists nowadays seemingly want to write, is a robot. Any Robot, let us note, can be rendered as brilliant, as shiny, as rationalized, and as streamlined, with “clean lines,” as is desired, as well as most perfectly elegant, according to the tastes of the day. The Robot is destined to become the centerpiece of the Palace of Discovery… It is he who is the end-all and be-all of so much civilizing “rationalistic” effort…admirably Naturalistic and objective (the Robot occasionally becomes intoxicated, however! the sole human trait of the Robot at this time)… Ever since the Renaissance there has been this tendency to work with everincreasing enthusiasm towards the advent of the Kingdom of the Sciences and the Social robot. The most reductionist…the most objective of languages is the journalistically [”/168] perfect one to fill in as the objective language of the Robot… We are already there… It’s no longer necessary to maintain a soul in opposition to the reality of death, in order to express oneself humanistically… And how many volumes! how many aspects! how many facets! and what a lot of publicity! …any sort of robotic jabber whatever can be a triumph! We are already there…

[Anonymous No.5886189]

There's nothing wrong with contemporary art or any other art whatsoever because art is a mirror of the society it was made in. Don't blame the mirror for the ugly reflection!

[The Man That Doesn't Exist(...) !!v5sg1piOcEl No.5886195]

Surrealism. In it, there is no longer anything to fear! No sort of emotivity is necessary. Anyone who wants can take refuge therein, and proclaim himself a genius! . . . An admirable Jewish trick!… The empty hype of the Jewish critics!… At a single stroke above all judgment! …superior to all points of reference! …to all humanistic texts… And the more emasculated, impotent, sterile, pretentious and farcical it is, the more of a bore and a poor impostor it is, the more forceful will be its effrontery, and the more genius and fantastic success it will have…(with Jewish publicity “on command,” you understand). Admirably simple! presto!… The Renaissance splendidly paved the way, through its Judaic fanaticism and its worship of the pre-scientific, for this stinking evolution towards all things seamy. This catastrophic promotion of all the world’s castrati into the Kingdom of the Arts… As a cultural manifestation of the “boys from the Freemasonic laboratories, and as claptrap even more bound-up, more constricted than Positivism, naturalism has since the Renaissance carried forth the same gigantic stupidities, the same calamitous prejudice in favor of the ultimate power of vapidity. This trick has not fallen on a deaf Jewish ear… Sterile, conceited, destructive, swinish, and monstrously megalomaniacal, the Jews are currently accomplishing, to full capacity, and under the same standard as their conquest of the world, the degradation, the monstrous crushing, and the systematic and total annihilation of our most natural emotions as conveyed in all of our essential, instinctive arts, in music, painting, poetry, theater… “Replacing Aryan emotion with the Nigger’s tom-tom.

[Anonymous No.5886198]

That's what you get for forgetting there's no in itself.
The fact you seem stuck on a so called "Universal standards" and seem to think only proportions or realism matters is clearly a sign that you're contributing to the death of art.
You cling to what's been done until now and cry to the fact other people see things and create nature.

[Anonymous No.5886211]

>>5886195
>>5886185
>>5886176
>>5886161
Nobody cares, fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5886215]

>>5886107
Is this guy autistic? I watched his videos and he straight up seems autistic. The page describing his book is also just hideous, something id do at 8 yrs old but with mych nore detail.

[Anonymous No.5886227]

>>5886215
Something like that yeah, it might have been OCD but it's not autism.

[=^.^= No.5886245]

>>5886215
He has extreme OCD or something. His whole website is just wierd.

http://www.ulillillia.us/aboutme/foodanddrink.shtml

http://www.ulillillia.us/tipsntricks/fatremovaltrick.shtml

http://www.ulillillia.us/features/mindgame/mindgamehome.shtml

[Anonymous No.5886248]

>>5886124
Do catholic feelings matter in art?

[Anonymous No.5886259]

>>5885931

The king has no fucking clothes.

The modern regime is so concerned with "saying" things that it shows us nothing and ceases to be profound. If a work does not show us something important and universal about the human being, then it is worthless as art. At best it may be considered decoration or a good technical achievement. At worst it is pretentious drivel.

[Anonymous No.5886262]

What exactly are the "Universal Standards" that he's claiming run through pre-Impressionist painting? He never says. Is it that the pieces should be accurate and realistic depictions of existing objects, figures or events? I really don't know, the only clue I get is that it's somehow objectively and measurably better than art dealing with visual abstraction or stylistic experimentation. Or, not even necessarily those two things, just superior to very specifically chosen postmodern pieces that have an overarching theme of bodily fluids.

This isn't a very well constructed argument. I can't really pinpoint his logic or reasoning or what the generalizations he's making even are. Fuck.

[Anonymous No.5886284]

>Why is "modern" art so bad?
>Why is this video so bad?
>Why is the trolling so bad?
>Why can't we have nice things?

Maybe because we're all shit? "Hurr durr, everything's bad and I'm just gonna bitch instead of do anything about it like the vapid consumerist shell I am".

Garbage in, garbage out, we get what we put forth.

All this bluster about about how terrible contemporary art is, not one mention of Odd Nerdrum. Face it, what you all want is shit and that's what's being served.

[Anonymous No.5886289]

>>5886038
Autism. Is this college a real thing?
Im being overloaded with ulis autism and this dumb ass college's

[Anonymous No.5886290]

>>5886262
It's a 5 minute video mate, what do you expect? A detailed analasys of Forms and how art is trying to reflect them?

[Anonymous No.5886308]

>>5885931
I go to university for art, no amount of brainwashing is going to advance my 'taste' to prefer literal shit.

you're deluding yourself and all the sane people are laughing at people like you. hell, even koons and ofili laugh at suckers like you who pay millions to seem like you have 'advanced taste'

[Anonymous No.5886333]

>>5886262

the funny thing is the whole time he's whining about the petra statue you just know he thinks some gay shit like this is "precious"

[Anonymous No.5886335]

>>5886290
Then he should make it longer than a 5 minute video and go into more depth. The man's a fucking university professor, I expect some deeper level of thought than the kind of Youtube comment ranting a 12 year old Queen fan makes when he's railing modern pop music. Why express the argument at all if he's going to deliberately confine himself to vague generalities that cloud the clarity of his point?

I mean, I don't expect a whole course on art history and the abstract analysis of forms as they appear through each successive movement, just a fucking definition of what he means by "standards" and some more specific reasoning and explanation behind the point he's trying to make, man. He's an educated man, he should know how to form a cohesive and coherent argument.

[Anonymous No.5886336]

Every day.

[Anonymous No.5886338]

>>5886284
I like odd nerdrum. I used to be all in a huff about contemporary art, but I realized all this shit wont survive. People in the future have no reason to value what our degenerate society values, they wont care who the first fucking hack to shit in a can and call it art is, only the truly beautiful art from our time that touches the human soul will survive. Make no mistake, people are still creating beauty, they just dont have an outlet to be known because our society doesnt give a shit about them. Their work will be valued in the future though. However there are some who gained fame, see: Sally Mann, Odd Nerdrum

[Anonymous No.5886340]

>>5886284
Man, for all the hype about "total ugliness" earlier in the thread that painting is really just lame and lazy, made by what amounts to a pretentious teenager(porn and poop and vaginas and urine, so edgy XDDD). While all this contemporary art really is quite vacuous, you could at least put effort in what you're doing and make absolutely disgusting abominations, like Van Minnen does.

[Anonymous No.5886347]

>>5886335
that's why i feel like it has to be some kind of troll, no one with a phd level education would believe the stupid shit he's saying, is he doing like a steven colbert faux conservative or something?

[Anonymous No.5886351]

>>5886259
>le ebin king has no clothes maymay
>lmuh universality

0,88/10 try harder faggot

[Anonymous No.5886373]

>>5886340
Although he's rather overrated on 4chan (weirdly enough), I think Beksinski was also quite good at representing ugliness and decay in a very artful way.

[Anonymous No.5886378]

>>5886338
Y

[Anonymous No.5886380]

>>5886373
He could also make some genuinely fucking ugly shit, which just goes to show his skill in anatomy. Fun fact, he was a major masochist.

[Anonymous No.5886398]

>>5885874
That whole thing about him asking his students to analyse the jackson pollock painting only for him to reveal it as his painting apron is one big crock of shit. If their criticisms or praises were perfectly valid, then he should have no reason to dismiss those responses, even if the piece wasn't a real piece of art at all. Relying on a 'creator' of sorts to give meaning or value to a piece is something which is now considered irrelevant in essentially all artistic mediums, and so to criticise modern art because of its lack of tangible form is stupid as hell.

[Anonymous No.5886399]

That's fine and all, but it dosen't answer the most important question.
Video games. Art or not?

[Anonymous No.5886401]

>>5886399
Videogames are the highest possible artform

t. icycalm

[Anonymous No.5886402]

>>5886399

kill urself

[Anonymous No.5886406]

>>5886399
Absolutely. Though, personally I'd say none of its greatest works come close to the greatest works in other mediums.

[Anonymous No.5886412]

>>5886338
You really took a horrible, sub-par Nerdrum image to represent that sentiment...It's almost a pity you can't post the squatting and shitting women paintings on this board.
I once saw a reprint of one of his art books with a recommendation by Kat von D on the cover.

[Anonymous No.5886427]

>>5886406
That's just because video games are 56 years old(counting from Spacewar!), and the world has turned to inanity long before then. If the greeks invented video games I guarantee that all other artforms would be practically forgotten by now.

[Anonymous No.5886444]

>>5885874
That's a troll video from a troll channel

[Anonymous No.5886450]

>>5886412
why is it subpar? he's gone through many different stylistic changes. I think Nerdrum's erection self-portrait and 'twilight' (the shitting painting) are more representative of a "vulgar genius" like Mozart's fart jokes and Joyce's fart letters. Its not his whole art, and hes not defined by it like someone like Manzoni.

[Anonymous No.5886457]

>>5886412
dude is ripping a mean hot beer fart here. i'd know that pained expression anywhere.

lmaoing at all these 4chan art critics

[Anonymous No.5886464]

>>5886398
is this what d&g mean when they say capitalism causes schizophrenia? are we really so solipsistic to believe our analysis of random paint splotches is worthwhile and something to be learned from..?

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886466]

>>5886444
Trips for truth. The worst part is that it's not intentional about the trolling.
It tends to make decent threads, even if long as fuck and filled with people agreeing through their sincere lack of understanding of how history works.

[Anonymous No.5886468]

>>5886450
It is not about style.
Ah, here we can finally battle art on what it has not battled before: skill.

The work you represented is less skillful and lazier (and not in a alla prima nor sprezzatura kind of way either) effort...here there is no debate among critics, only among draftsmen.
I would not expect you to understand and thats why I conclude that it is the reason you would take a liking to a sub par work.

You don't know any better.

[Anonymous No.5886475]

>>5886450
speaking of odd nerdrum, heres his different tiers of artists. what does /lit/ think of them?

I think most artists today are at the ego-centric level (only want fame)

[Anonymous No.5886503]

>>5886468
Pray, enlighten me oh master draftsmen. Skill...Michaelangelo is not 'skilled', he paints blocky men and men with breasts nailed on for women.

Art is not about skill, and it is not about 'originality'. you seem to be swinging radically in the opposite direction of post-modernism, but you are still wrong. skill is a vital importance to creation of art, sure, but it is not the be all, end all, definition attribute. Art must transform our perception and allow an atmosphere for higher contemplation, which is what the nerdrum painting I posted does. An empty copy of reality by a 'skillful' draftsman teaches us nothing new and furthers our perception none.

Pic related, another 'subpar' work

[Anonymous No.5886504]

>>5886475
I haven't read it nor do I intent to, but do notice in the first sentence Nerdrum uses something no other artists dare to do...a definition to his practice, he calls himself a 'painter'.

This is what sets contemporary art apart from draftsmen like him...they're 'nothing'.
They're not particular sculptors, photographers, film makers, painters...you name it.

They're artists, they exist, therefore they are...I say NOT GOOD ENOUGH, CHAP!

Even if your intention is to never draw in your entire oeuvre, you should be able to to establish yourself among those that came before you by skill alone.

[Anonymous No.5886508]

This is how a line graph works. This is how a line graph should look. This is objective analysis by an educated college professor.

[Anonymous No.5886532]

>>5886504
you are so retarded. It says artist/painter, and that wasnt even Odd talking in the first sentence.

You say a whole lot of nothing, and you say it very pretentiously.

[Anonymous No.5886535]

>>5886503
>Painting is not about skill, and it is not about 'originality'.
>Sculpting is not about skill, and it is not about 'originality'.

See where we are at odds...this is fine, if the critic does not have a field to make money from, he will invent it.

> but it is not the be all, end all, definition attribute.

True, but it is the ONE thing a draftsman can assess the skill of another draftsman with.
It is the only true criticism in art, since it goes beyond subjectivity...it goes on experience and the experience of all those that came before them.
Being a masterly painter is being in competition with the entire canon of art history.
It's not unlike how only a piano virtuoso can truly judge another.

Here, a superior piece on the same model and theme.

[Anonymous No.5886545]

>>5886532
I wouldn't know, I barely glanced at it. (<-example of sprezzatura, you wouldn't even be able to comprehend)

[Anonymous No.5886554]

People who believe in such a thing as "universal standards" (lol) are retarded, or egotist who want to validate their taste as universal. If anything, artistic relativity is scientifically backed while universal standards is some primitive platonic shit.

[Anonymous No.5886569]

>>5886554
>scientifically backed

[Anonymous No.5886571]

>>5886535
that why you'll never understand. A draftsmen is shit. disposable, replaceable. Anyone can be taught to draw, and cultivate skill to copy reality.

An artist is someone who shows the world a a hidden truth.

see the difference?

[standards !trap0OylHY No.5886576]

>>5886508
I like how people got a bit more nitpicky around 1862

[Anonymous No.5886579]

We really have no place in this discussion, unless we buy art. There are a million and one different views on what art should be, represented by a million and one artists. The one that wins is the one that gets popular, and the one that gets popular is the one that sells.

And if you're thinking about making art, again, what you make is 100% your choice. It's a free market concept.

[Anonymous No.5886582]

>>5886545
>maybe if I throw in a fancy word for my retardation, I will seem nonchalant instead of unimaginably dense

[Anonymous No.5886587]

>>5886401
is that you Alex?

[Anonymous No.5886588]

>>5886069
Are you retarded? Even the poorest have some form of art in their lives. What do you think underground hip hop and graffiti is?

[Anonymous No.5886592]

>>5886571
artists are curators of world culture, taking the best of the past and combining it new ways based on their life experience and their epoch. drawing realistic nudes is a...slightly titillating technical exercise, not art.

[Anonymous No.5886604]

>>5886464
It's not that I think there's something to be learned from it, in fact I'm of the opinion that art is not a medium meant to teach or instruct. All analysis of a painting can do is reveal the painting itself.

[Anonymous No.5886607]

>>5886571
You're wrong, because you are essentially right.

>An artist is someone who shows the world a a hidden truth.

This, but it is impossible for you to say that you understand a person like Nerdrum or Rembrandt while painting.
Only a draftsman like them could understand...quite like how that page from his descriptions of different types of painters describes.

You can admire the work, you can appreciate the work and to a degree assess the work...but you will never ever be able to understand how the mind of a painter has developed to make such paintings with this degree of skill.

You wouldn't even be able to see the difference between a painting copied from a photo and a painting done from the mind or with models.
This is not your field, you, for once, are not the artist...they are, we can only tremble before them as their dedication to that skill has cost them their entire life.

[Anonymous No.5886615]

>>5886571
and this is why I don't get into relativism in art discussions anymore, you people just don't seem to understand the difference between a paint-by-numbers hyper realist artists and the technique of a Rembrand or Van Gogh, or you do but just like to bring up this strawman argument each time hoping somebody dumb enough will fall for it

[Anonymous No.5886618]

>>5886587
Of COURSE, you fagot subhuman.

[Anonymous No.5886627]

>>5886607
>>5886607
>we can only tremble before them as their dedication to that skill has cost them their entire life.

so, the kid who can beat super mario world on snes without dying has a dedication and skill that cost him his entire childhood, but you'd have to be a real simpleton to "tremble" before that skill

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886628]

>>5886579
>The one that wins is the one that gets popular, and the one that gets popular is the one that sells.
>I understand life as it has been for less than a century among a select group of people
>There's no way things could be different

[Anonymous No.5886635]

>>5886628
>implying all the famous reniascance dudes weren't all on the pay roll of rich bankers or some catholic bureaucrat

how is that different than making art for bankers and oligarchs today? the ruling class always buys the best art because they have the best education and therefor the best taste as well, deal with it

[Anonymous No.5886638]

>>5886627
Bullshit. Any pleb can worship the sacred cow of artistic genius which has been shoved down our throats for five centuries. It takes a man of insight to admire an accomplishment that the world regards as trivial.

[Anonymous No.5886645]

>>5886618
can I read the reviews on your website yet or do I still have to pay?

[Anonymous No.5886648]

>>5886627

The man who made it seems quite celebrated...the kid who plays it is 'the critic' in this story.
That was deflection, I say tremble for their sense for heliocentricity, a concept only felt faintly on one's shoulders for a moment with only mediocre skills.
..but nay, the legions of critics with no such skill whatsoever are the ones to judge.

[Anonymous No.5886650]

>>5886635
Lmao no, the grotesquely rich just buys art for it's sign value, and in this retarded age the art with the highest sign value is whatever the modern fartworld found in their local dumpster this morning.

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886661]

>>5886615
Well, discussing relativism at any point is dumb since it's something that everyone should already be aware of in the first place and it's the obvious stepping stone to discuss where the intersubjectivity appears.

But your point is also weak, technique is something that can be easily taught. In just three or four years you could do things that took masters all their life to discover. There is no real merit in technique but in how it is used. I do support your idea that you should have some experience in the medium to really get some nuances, but it's sadly common that the people who have that introduction get trapped in the same conclusions tied to their limited experience (usually putting process over product), so having a purely technical understanding isn't in itself enough to appreciate work (as having a historical knowledge isn't either). At the end the main thing is having real interest in the work and wanting to dedicate time to just think about it.

[Anonymous No.5886666]

>>5886638
>It takes a man of insight to admire an accomplishment that the world regards as trivial.

Or, in the modern sense, any pleb can worship the sacred cow of triviality which has been shoved down our throats for a century.

That is the game we are now playing, is it not?

[Anonymous No.5886668]

>>5886645
He actually unlocked everything, go take a look. I'm not sure about his universal philosophy but I can say that he's THE authority on video games. His forum is also incredibly value-dense, it's worth combing through for whatever he has to say.

[Anonymous No.5886669]

>>5886579
Well I HAPPEN to think that my 4chan shitposts are the HIGHEST expressions of postmodern art and I DEMAND a reputation equal or greater to that of Rembrandt you anti-Semitic shitlord

[Anonymous No.5886673]

>>5886668
Which reviews do you recommend in particular?

[Anonymous No.5886674]

>>5886669
find a rich guy to buy your posts and get a jew critic to write about the sale in the new york times and get ready for your spot in the canon

[Anonymous No.5886691]

>>5886673
Eh, reviews I don't know, they're not his most valuable material(and he agrees). Just read the ones for games you are interested in, though many of them are written by his followers. For articles and essays, I recommend http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html, though I'm not sure if it's a good place to start. Either way you should read everything he has written.

[Anonymous No.5886711]

>>5886661
you're talking about technique and style, like how you can learn to be a piano virtuoso but not have the "passion" that gives your playing that quality a beethoven or lisz might have, this is common knowledge.

This is boring. Rembrandt or Van Gogh are such good examples. You can reproduce their work but it will never be the same, now ask yourself why and that is the answer. That is what distinguishes the two types of artists we're talking about itt and how it is so easy for me to make that distinction but you keep going on pretending not to understand because you do, everyone does, but they keep defending modern art because they're intimidated of doing the actual work.

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886730]

>>5886635
That's a pretty poor reinterpretation of things to force it in a capitalist view. The most well known work by most artist came years after they had a patron paying for their lives, so the value of those works wasn't really tied to the price they had since the price was the expenses of the artist up to that point. It's not the same thing no matter how you force it.
And you're assuming they have the best education because they have the best economical roles but they had their education before that, so either they are uneducated and just in the right family (an idea that you are clearly avoiding but it's cool) or they had a great education among people with less money (not everyone in ivory universities is equally positioned once out).
All in all, stop being like that, be nice and think things through. We still love you.

>>5886674
That would be like buying a bear skin to use as a rug. Just putting money on this don't make them art, even less if you are just exploiting a natural resource (4chan stupidity)

[Anonymous No.5886756]

>>5885874
Except pynchon has genius prose regardless of the scat jokes.
Postmodernism to me is just recognizing everything is a joke and you, art, and culture is all a part of it.

[Anonymous No.5886758]

>>5886043
their idea was beautiful but they're kind of pleb tbh

it's like poetry done with paint but no one really mastered it. the closest was monet but that's because he started experimenting with light and time rather than making "art"

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886766]

>>5886691
>Either way you should read everything he has written.
You sound like someone with a very poor cirteria. Shouldn't you be saying the same about so many writers that are before and above him that it wouldn't leave time to read this guy?

>>5886711
Haven't you ever catched students re doing classical paintings? In el prado they even had certain rules about your reproduction so it can't be sold as a reproduction. Do you know how many fake rembrandts are there?
There's a great line from Picasso, when asked why he kept trashing most of his works he used to say that anyone can make a fake picasso, even himself.

Technique has value, I'm not saying it doesn't, and you understand it better when you know how to apply it, I'm also agreeing on that. But it's just a part of what makes your understanding of a certain work. To have an in depth analysis and to be able to express an opinion that's both interesting and revealing the main thing is dedicating huge amounts of time to think about the work. If you really care you'll see a lot more things than if you have a prefect previous preparation.

[Anonymous No.5886767]

>>5886730
you're trying to defend bad taste and that's a choice you will have to live with

[Anonymous No.5886773]

>>5886308
>prefer

if you prefer either pre-modern or modern/post-modern over the other then you're literally a pleb

[Anonymous No.5886777]

>>5886259
>The modern regime is so concerned with "saying" things that it shows us nothing and ceases to be profound

maybe you should read some recent art history writing before saying that lmbo

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886789]

>>5886756
>This critical theory to me is about X
Are you applying relativism to defined movements?

>>5886767
I don't know what I said defending bad taste. I wouldn't like to pretend taste is universal because this isn't 1875 and the enlightenment came and went already.
What things bothered you? Maybe we agree and I just expressed myself wrongly or you connected my post to some other.

[Anonymous No.5886797]

>>5886777
>contentless post

[Anonymous No.5886801]

>>5886766
We know EXACTLY how many real Rembrandts are...the ones in dispute are only so, because they were from the hand of his most promising pupils....trained by the master himself.

It just keeps blowing my mind how any of you think to even understand the tiniest fragment of what it takes for Rembrandt to make a single stroke with his brush.
His intelligence, his brilliance, his thoughts, his skill...it's THE most revolting experience of modern condition, the idea that people can just place themselves next to a Rembrandt and say 'oh it's this and this'.

You know NOTHING, sir, NOT a thing at all about painting.

Here's the kicker...why do you think there are so little blue period fakes?

[Anonymous No.5886817]

>>5886797
hypocrisy

[Anonymous No.5886823]

>>5886817

Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.5886827]

>>5886801
>why do you think there are so little blue period fakes?

because art production had changed between the baroque period and the modern

[Anonymous No.5886833]

>>5886823
contentless posts

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886838]

>>5886801
I know you really want to have some discussion or something, but please calm down and recognize that you are saying pretty tame and agreeable things.

Yes, great artists combine technique with a unique creative spirit (unique to each one).
I was standing on the not creator position and commenting how pure technique can be easily trained and it's a common part of most art schools. That doesn't mean the student will make something on the same level, but there is a market for reproductions and a lot of people lack the trained eye to discern one from the other.

No one will say "oh it's this and this", that's never the point of critic. If anything it sounds like something a crappy and underpayed professor will say and most students will hate him for saying so. Usually a critic's work is to find particular parts of his own interpretation process that he finds interesting and developing them for a public that has seen the work and is interested in reading someone's take; maybe to feel better about their own ideas, to compare with opposing ones and add more layers to his own, to read someone explaining things he had just at an emotional level, or to learn more about the context of the artist and that work. But again, I was just talking from the spectator role.

[Anonymous No.5886842]

>>5886766
re what you said I didn't even need to finish reading it because I knew already this is what you were going to reply, this is why there are VERY few people in the world who have the authority to judge a fake Rembrand from a real one and this goes for most painters.
IF you have the knowledge required (altough I admit sometimes that's not even enough since some paintings considered "lazier" could be actually made by the artist himself, you still should be able to tell them apart if you know the artist's hand but sometimes because of condition or chance you just can't) then you are able to make that judgment, we're talking about people who spent their lives looking at these works up close. Of course you couldn't possibly by a 2D picture online.
And I know you're also going to say 'but you could also never reproduce a Pollock because it could never be twice the same!' but we're not talking about casual chance, although that sometimes plays into it as well.

It takes forever to know an artist's hand and know its movements and what they mean in his mind, you will truly never know 100% but you can study it and come close. I never quite cared for Botticelli until I saw it in real life. This is an ability you develop with time and experience, you can't just say "I'll just copy this by numbers so that it's identical" without having an understanding of what you're doing.

To reproduce a Picasso and for it to be a credible enough Picasso you would have to learn his hand and his brushstrokes, you would have to get into his head and think like he think, paradoxically you would become a Picasso, albeit a useless one.

[Anonymous No.5886846]

>>5886766
>You sound like someone with a very poor cirteria. Shouldn't you be saying the same about so many writers that are before and above him that it wouldn't leave time to read this guy?
Considering he's the number one authority(by miles, at that) on video games and the fact that his site could probably be read through in a few days of casual reading there's simply no excuse to not read him as fast as you can if you have any interest in video games at all.

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886863]

>>5886842
I constantly fear I'm loosing some pronouns or shit in the language barrier and people answer nonsequiturs because of that, I'm sorry if its the case.

Yes. I know the creative spirit behind each work is more important than how it looks. I was bringing up fakes to exemplify how it doesn't only matter how something was done by that artist, but also the work itelf (which, I know, is directly related to the technique, but while it might be a product of it it isn't the main aspect of a work).

Again, even Picasso made fake Picassos.

[Anonymous No.5886879]

That muhskillfag's writing style is hillariously pompous.

[Anonymous No.5886881]

>>5886838
I-i have no other place to go...I'm not humoring you, I have stood before Rembrandts and Da Vinci's and I truly have trembled before their brilliance...their more human than human excellence.
I've dedicated my life to the craft and the analysis of painters and what I found was indeed the hidden world of which Odd Nerdrum spoke, but only glimpses.
No brilliant painter will admit this, but painting on a high level is extremely difficult...the majority of scholars will not go beyond copying.
There is no way of explaining without having the other engage in the same obsessiveness on how you can read a painting, where you see where the painter has had more joy, where he is lazy, where he is frustrated.
It's there, it's terribly spectacular, but nobody now seems to be willing to go that far.

I'll give you an anecdote...I stood in the Uffizi in awe before the Caravaggio hall while an elder American lady comes in, takes one single glance and spouts in a loud Midwestern accent 'I DON'T LIKE IT'.

My rage.the dept.

[Anonymous No.5886895]

So I have to choose between oil on canvas/masonry or I can have anything and everything under the sun bespoke ?

I'd rather the latter

And so does the market tbh

[I love you too, silly !trap0OylHY No.5886898]

>>5886881
>No brilliant painter will admit this, but painting on a high level is extremely difficult...
what? that's not the case at all in my experience.
>engage in the same obsessiveness on how you can read a painting, where you see where the painter has had more joy, where he is lazy, where he is frustrated.
I've been with people doing in depth analysis of works, it's a "thing" in academic circles. And if you have the same level of obsessiveness it's quite enjoyable too.

It's a small space of people really interested, accepting that is part of growing as an artist I guess.

[Anonymous No.5886903]

>>5886535
What is your opinion on smashbros fanfiction. I remind you I will see your opinion as that of a petty critic with no understaning of skill if you have no written milion and milions of words of unpalarelled autism and thus engaged with smashbros fanfiction creator's sublime genius.

[Anonymous No.5886905]

>>5886098
what emotion are you conveying?


check and mate good sir

[Anonymous No.5886910]

>>5886059
>key element of art:
>emotion

the fuck

[Anonymous No.5886916]

>>5886014
your opposition proves there's something to justify

[Anonymous No.5886927]

>>5885912

I agree re: Chris Ofili at least. I like his art.

[Anonymous No.5886955]

>>5886098
>There was hard work requiring skill put in.
You've never worked with silicon before have you, ya rube?

[Anonymous No.5886963]

>>5886898
>what? that's not the case at all in my experience.
See: Sprezzatura...it's the highest of levels, where the painting comes from the mind's eye...not the model, not the picture, but truly from the experience and the hours and hours of thinking on how light and shadow folds around the rounding of skin and flesh.
Many will use technique, few use applied skill.

A painter has to face questions that will have him or her spent countless hours questioning and visualizing 'What is a nose in a face'.
A master can reproduce the world from his mind in a way that it is true, instead of real.

You group sounds fun tbh...but I wonder if one truly listens to the other or if they're just trying to pass over their own personal interpretations to see if they get some validations as opposed to discover their own rights and wrongs in front of the actual work.

>>5886903
You got me, I couldn't tell you the quality of one from another...I can enjoy them or I can be indifferent to them, but I could not tell you what makes one Smashbros fanfic from another simply because I'm not a nintendrone

[Anonymous No.5886965]

How come the reaction of conservatives to anything they don't like is nearly always SHUT IT DOWN.

Maybe just don't partake and you'd see that generally people agree with you and the stuff you object to is little more than 2% of the whole.

But the moment you voice concern or exaggerate as you are so prone to doing, the opposition will inevitably intensify regroup and come right back at you.

You make things worse.

[None !trap0OylHY No.5886968]

>>5886098
>There was hard work requiring skill put in.
Do you believe that you just go to photoshop and press the button that turns photographs into 3D renders? Or you think he walked around a police woman peeing and captured the different angles? Do you think it was done by magic?

You can not like it all you want, you can express why you don't like it and present a valid point about it while you do that. You don't get to chose what art is and why, though.

[Anonymous No.5886990]

>>5886444
Lol, even before clicking it I knew it would be Prager University. I love these guys and their bullshit 5 minutes "courses".

[None !trap0OylHY No.5887013]

>>5886963
Group things rarely work, you have to find particular cases that share your interest and keep them as friends to go see certain art. That way you don't get the kind of insecurities that start all that petty competition.

Have you seen Murder Party? You'll like it.

[Anonymous No.5887021]

>>5886965
modern and avant-garde art can be great too, nobody isn't saying anything against that here.

technique, style, experience is what makes art, there are many ways of accomplishing this, honestly if your reaction is to make an art piece out of plastic cups stacked on top of each other and call it the tower of pisa (not as a joke) you'll get no reactions from elitists, just from the plebs who get shocked
the elites are in on the joke guys, it's the middle class that you're shocking

[Anonymous No.5887023]

>>5886098
>David and Augustus celebrate figures from mythology and history, Petra was made solely to be controversial.

so david and augustus are basically just illustrations from a time before photography? doesn't sound very artistic to me. petra is only controversial because you're an uptight puritan and you make it controversial, people who can discuss arts like adults don't find it controversial

[Anonymous No.5887029]

>>5886059
>a key element of art: It doesn't evoke emotion.

evoking emotion is sentimentality, a key element of cheesy low art of the pleb class sure

[Anonymous No.5887033]

>>5886965
...I dunno...have you ever been to art fairs lately? 2% is really not accurate, it is at least 50/50 if you keep track.
It mostly seems like an occupation for their moronic bourgeois kids to occupy themselves with...which is shocking, since you would expect them to come from these conservative, upper echelon type families...it's actually the middle and middle-upper class...how dull, right?
It's been a long time since art was the intellectual transaction between the working/underclass and the upper class.

No conservative I know of is shouting to tear down the Ron Muecks and burn the Neo Rauchs...it so easy to give them shit, but I honestly believe it comes from a good place.
Art is supposed to matter to them, it should have value beyond the financial...for it to be vapid, truly vapid, with no place for it in any type of future seems like a horrendously missed opportunity for us, we, the now, to matter to them...the future.

I can't blame them, I just can't fully agree with them.

[Anonymous No.5887036]

>>5886115
>techniques that would beautify her image

so you're in favor of images than enhance mary's sensuality? that's kind of odd...

[Anonymous No.5887044]

>>5886069
I agree.

[Anonymous No.5887051]

>>5886650
are you implying when a pope hired michaelangelo to design his tomb it wasn't for "sign value"? sounds to me like you've wasted a lot of time reading silly marxist doodoo, the best art has always gone to the ruling class, in every era and every culture

[Anonymous No.5887068]

>>5887013
>Have you seen Murder Party?

I'll pass, not my 'genre'...but I appreciate the gesture.

[Anonymous No.5887073]

>>5885874
>Jackson Pollock ... actually my studio apron ... nearly impossible to differentiate between the two

No it isn't you retard

[Anonymous No.5887087]

every time you see a thread dismissing "modern" art its usually best just to take a deep breath and keep scrolling.

[Anonymous No.5887089]

>>5887073
yeah, when he first showed the apron shot i was like "hmm, i guess that must be one of pollack's minor works, wonder why he picked that?" and then i was like doh hoho u sneaky ruse master!

[Anonymous No.5887094]

>>5887087
if i did that with every stupid troll thread on /lit/ i would scroll through the whole fucking site and never post, oh maybe that was what you intended

[Anonymous No.5887099]

>>5887087
it's weird how they always hate "modern art" i'm like i thought all those gay ass randfags dug art deco shit

[Anonymous No.5887102]

oh look, it's THIS piece of shit thread again

[argfa No.5887112]

>>5887068
Horror comedy is a pretty horrible genre, but it's more like just comedy, half of it about the indie art world.

>>5887073
This is repeated many times in each thread but it will never be enough.

[Anonymous No.5887118]

>>5887073
bro, someone should do it the other way around and like take some hyper-realistic muscle man off the cover of a dungeons and dragons game and be like "this is a masterpiece from the late rococo, from the court of lious the XIV in fact" and then be like "SIKE it's from the player's manual to diablo III bitch!!"

[Anonymous No.5887127]

>>5887118
nobody would fall for it

[Anonymous No.5887137]

Ok guys I love modern/postmodern/contemporary/whatever art. Cubism, Futurism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Pop Art, love it all.

But pic fucking related is the biggest most overrated piece of shit I have ever seen and anyone who thinks it's a good work of art is objectively wrong.

[Anonymous No.5887153]

>>5887137
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDuzy-t7GDA
overrated sure but you shouldnt let its price and fame obscure the fact that there was thought put into it

[None !trap0OylHY No.5887170]

>>5887127
>implying anyone who has seen a Pollock fell for the first one.

>>5887137
You're missing the point. You can perfecty dislike anything, my dad was a huge defender of modernist art while saying that art nouveau was for faggots. Disliking something for dumb reasons is an option in life, and you can still deeply appreciate other aspects of art. It's not about liking and disliking, it's about not saying this is good or bad art and saying something.
Usually bad art gets quickly forgotten anyway since its competing with centuries of great and not so great art.

[Anonymous No.5887181]

>>5887137
Always made me think of:

>"For Frankfurt School intellectual Walter Benjamin the purpose of modern art was to spread the kind of cultural pessimism that would bring on the revolution, insisting that "To organise pessimism means nothing other than to expel the moral metaphor from politics."

>>5887153
Not even Hirst's biggest supporters would claim him to be a deep or bright man, his single biggest influence was Michael Craig-Martin's 'An Oak Tree'.

[Anonymous No.5887182]

>>5887170
this guy gets it, if all you can judge about art is whether its good or bad, your notions of "good" art are going to be naive

[Anonymous No.5887187]

>>5887153
I've watched that video before and found it frustratingly dumb. The way they go on about the title like it's some genius Nietzschean aphorism, give me a break. It's like something a 12 year old child would come up with.

I'm not so much interested in "thought". This kind of shit is way too interested in it. These pieces of "art" seem to be made more to give academics something to write about than actually giving somebody an aesthetic experience. Any time I raise my reservations with this kind of thing they go through tremendous intellectual acrobatics to defend it or to "prove" that it's "good". Which, in my opinion, should be completely secondary to the more primary reaction, which is: "it's a shark".

[Anonymous No.5887193]

>>5887153
Oh and with regard to the price/fame thing, it's pretty impossible at this stage to separate this stuff from the ridiculous amounts of money it makes. Things like Hirst's diamond skull or whatever it's called is literally a symbol of his own wealth.

That's another thing, all this stuff is very egotistical.

[Anonymous No.5887199]

>>5885967
Difference is that before, most people didn't have access to publications and, most probably, if you wrote something it would have to be above standards to even reach an editorial. That's partly why there is so much mediocre shit. Most folks can 'write'; jesus, just looking at stuff like this http://www.amazon.com/Stream-Secrets-Streamers-Viewers-Twitch-ebook/dp/B00O7WNB5S and then classic authors gives you an idea.

[Anonymous No.5887202]

>>5887137
>>5887137
well obviously part of it is the koonzian commentary on plebeian kitch art...it's just like the junky souvenier your aunt bought on her vacation to the bahamas but this one is huge and costs 14 million dollars so it's clearly "serious art" while your aunts shit is just kitch...that's the most obvious angle of it but there's more if you think about it but i'm not doing your art history homework for you

[Anonymous No.5887204]

>>5887170
But I dislike it on another level too, at that is that I actually think it is detrimental to society as a whole.

Why? Because art is important. And when the museums are full of stuff like this you can't blame the public for not wanting to go to them.

Not to mention a lot of museums are in trouble to stay open because of private collectors. Watched a documentary called "The Mona Lisa Curse"

[Anonymous No.5887205]

This entire thread is infuriating.

[Anonymous No.5887207]

>>5887153
holy shit is that that indian nerd from khan academy? that dude should stick to teaching algebra on youtube and not trying to be aesthete

[Anonymous No.5887208]

>>5887153

>I feel like the title itself could be a work of art

Modern art seems to all have that shit. They all have long titles like emo albums, and you'll hear people go on and on and on about what it 'means' and they're staring at a rock or a chair or some other bullshit. I think half of these people want to be philosophers or writers but just don't have the intellect or talent for it, so they throw some paint at a wall, give it an emo title and call it quits. What's the point of even having an art piece if the main focus of the art piece is the bullshit pseudo-philosophy that people project onto it? You might as well just fuck the art and herd critics and 'artists' into a room and let them all sniff each others farts for an hour.

[Anonymous No.5887211]

>>5887182
or, we're simply being intellectually conned into the way of thinking of our times, think of the 60s when postmodernism started to become all the rage and all this modern art was coming out, now we have irony/sincerity and we think we're being so clever with our meme art, it's almost like the dissidents and the underground is the mainstream now and it's more revolutionary and productive to actually disagree with post-modernism

[Anonymous No.5887212]

>>5887202
>well obviously part of it is the koonzian commentary on plebeian kitch art
Why anyone would give even a quarter of an artists shit about plebian kitch art or commentary on it is beyond me

[Anonymous No.5887214]

>>5887202
>but there's more if you think about it

I shouldn't have to put that much effort into it. That's just a rationalisation, not a rational response.

[Anonymous No.5887217]

>>5887187
youre right to be critical of them because they do talk about it in higher regards than what was possibly intended by hirst however analytical art interpretation should never be secondary to
>the more primary reaction, which is: "it's a shark".
this is how you be a pleb and never learn anything about art.
>>5887187
>>5887181
consider this if we're not judging art as good or bad, why shouldnt we try to be open minded and provoke thoughts from a metaphorical understanding of the artwork even if what we understand may not have been fully intended by the artist. this is what the people in the video do (and you can tell there is some conflict when they discuss the unintentional dissolving)

same goes for literature, you dont always have to worry about whether a symbol was intended by the author to gain some valuable understanding of it

[Anonymous No.5887218]

>>5887212
because like so many angsty faggots in this thread have been pointing out we live in a bourgeois age of the art market where however much you spend on it determines how good it is, so a $10 shark in a jar from a cruise = bad art, $10,000,000 shark in a box in a museum = good

[Anonymous No.5887219]

>>5887208
>paint

I fucking wish m8

[None !trap0OylHY No.5887221]

>>5887181
Benjamin died too young, he didn't get the chance of growing up and dropping the edge like Adorno did.

[Anonymous No.5887228]

>>5887202
it's been done

[Anonymous No.5887231]

>>5887221
wasn't benjamin a hardcore zionist? if he was still alive he would be a villain to leftists

[Anonymous No.5887235]

>>5887217
"Learning from art" doesn't consist in taking the work of art as a premise for an argument or essay.

[Anonymous No.5887240]

Is it possible to like classical AND modern art? Cause I feel like I'm cheating in genuinely liking them both. They're all "art" just different sides of the same coin. They both have different purposes and aims, but in the end they're all objects created by people for a purpose that goes beyond the purely utilitarian.

Could some collegefag enlighten me why I'm wrong for liking both?

[Anonymous No.5887244]

>>5887214
also, it deals with the seperation between nature and art. if that same exact shark and tank was in a natural history museum would you look at it the same way? what is the relationship between naturally occurring beauty and man made art? additionally what is the relationship between science and death, when we go to marvel at nature and science and the museum is full of bones and corpses

[Anonymous No.5887245]

>>5887235
maybe. but theres a point where if you want to learn more about art history you have to abandon your "this is stupid its just a urinal nothing more to it, I could have done that" attitude. Theres always going to be a point where you interpret things deeper than the artists intentions but thats better then never learning to interpret at all!

[Anonymous No.5887254]

>>5887240
only a fucking retard thinks there is even a difference between one art and another, at least in the western tradition, it is all in the same continuum, sure art history books have to be split into chapters and college courses have to be split into 101 and 102 but it's not like during the renaissance someone made a diagonal composition and the pope came out rang a bell and "we baroque now!"

[Anonymous No.5887257]

>>5887254
So basically the entire thread is just wanking.

[Anonymous No.5887260]

>>5887245
the funny thing is kids on places like 4chan think trolls and memes could one day be taken seriously as art, but the jokes on them when duchamp already trolled the art community 100 years ago and andy warhol already did memes to death half a century ago, it's been done kiddies, your generation is not special

[Anonymous No.5887261]

This is art.

[Anonymous No.5887262]

>>5887244
No it doesn't. That's just an observation you've made in retrospect

>>5887245
Generally, people who are well acquainted with art and art history etc. don't respond to things that way

On that point though, all these fuckers are ripping off Duchamp.

[Anonymous No.5887263]

>>5887254
>a continuum means that all things on it are the same
you realize you're saying that blue is red right

[Anonymous No.5887266]

>>5887261
This is also art

[Anonymous No.5887267]

Btw speaking of Hirst, there was this study done on modern art to show how long people would stand looking at a piece of art in a museum and the results were showing how much longer people stared at classical art rather than modern... except for one of Hirst's works, wish I could remember where I read this.

[Anonymous No.5887269]

>>5887262
>That's just an observation you've made in retrospect

as opposed to an observation I would make at some other time?

[Anonymous No.5887270]

>>5887266
This is also art too

[Anonymous No.5887271]

>>5887266
So is this.

[Anonymous No.5887274]

>>5887217
This is in conflict with 'real life' where Hirst came forward for making the second shark because he felt shitty for the people that bought it for 10 million when it was rotting and gave a discount for the second one by selling it for 7 million.
This is true, please look it up if you don't believe me.
Mind you, the people discussing it are discussing it on a level where everyone can bullshit their way into an interpretation...it's a create your own story work to them.

This, in it's very core...and how downtrodden and shoddy the whole thing is...is also the only legitimacy of the whole metamodernism thing.
It could quite literally just have a little plaque saying 'Damien Hirst' random in a space and that would be enough for the same public analysis.

I'll add I'm not opposed to 'some' contemporary art, but can we at least agree that if we do away with the term 'art' that a baroque painting is not the same as a contemporary installation.

[Anonymous No.5887275]

>>5887270
Yup, also art
>>5887271
If you think so, ok.

[None !trap0OylHY No.5887276]

>>5887187
>made more to give academics something to write about than actually giving somebody an aesthetic experience
There are aesthetic experiences that require a previous knowledge. There is no need to make all art for the general masses and there will always be art for the masses and for the recently initiated and so on. On the same hand the art made to generate complex impressions or to comment on other works isn't less valid just as it isn't more. You can have Proust and you can have Kerouac.
Notice that I'm not discussing this particular case but the generalization.

>>5887193
>all this stuff is very egotistical.
Why are you applying morality on the artistic process?

>>5887202
I don't know if I see that connection, but I don't see why you take it as a critique of kitch or popular taste. If anything it takes from the generic "modern" simple white lines approach, which is pretty common among the masses in terms of taste.

>>5887214
>I shouldn't have to put that much effort into it.
Yes, you should. You are the art equivalent to the guy who always plays rpgs with a guide. Go away with your demands of accessibility.

[Anonymous No.5887277]

more art

[Anonymous No.5887279]

>>5887261
are you sure? i thought that was a t-shirt

[Anonymous No.5887281]

ART Is anyone learning?

[Anonymous No.5887283]

>>5887279
/fa/ plz

[Anonymous No.5887284]

>>5887277
cheap eroticism

[Anonymous No.5887285]

>>5887275
Here's another piece of art discussing contemporary and historical power relations between russia and finland

[Anonymous No.5887292]

You might not like it, it's still art!

Look at this, far older than the Old Masters.

[Anonymous No.5887293]

>>5887281
Oh hey, I've seen this fetish on /d/.

[Anonymous No.5887294]

>>5887202
>>5887276

it's not a critique of kitsch, it's a critique of rich people with more money than taste who just blow big bucks on oversized kitsch bullshit

[Anonymous No.5887297]

>>5887285
I don't care for it, but if you find it meaningful it's art for you, friend.

[Anonymous No.5887299]

>>5887292
wtf is this bullshit, a fucking cow lady holding a big ass bucket? and people call this shit "art", show me something with emotion! with feeeeling!

[Anonymous No.5887300]

It was fun guys, I'm off...here, have some shota Spinoza

/thread

[Anonymous No.5887301]

This is also art. I just made it on MS Paint.

[Anonymous No.5887303]

Post art. Come on fags.

[Anonymous No.5887311]

Have some more art.

[Anonymous No.5887313]

>>5887269
It's a post-hoc rationalisation, is what I'm saying

>>5887276
>These are ...
Nothing you said there was relevant

>Why are you applying morality to the artistic process?
I'm not ...

>Yes, you should. You are the art equivalent to the guy who always plays rpgs with a guide. Go away with your demands of accessibility.
I'm all for difficult and inaccessible art, but "working" to understand art doesn't consist in persuading yourself through argument that it's good.

You are way less intelligent than your tone is voice is trying to imply.

[Anonymous No.5887314]

>>5887297
It's not art for just me, it's art for everyone you pleb. You should read more art history to understand this incredibly complex subject before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

[Anonymous No.5887315]

>>5887292

[Anonymous No.5887318]

>>5887301
Not gonna argue. If it's meaningful to you, it's art! I hope you find another person that loves your work too.

[Anonymous No.5887322]

>>5887318
Thanks, man. This is a lot of fun.

[Anonymous No.5887323]

>>5887311
"Polyphemus lamenting in the gray night"

blowing your minds already?

[Anonymous No.5887324]

Know what? This is art.

[Anonymous No.5887326]

>>5886098
washington crossing the delaware is pleb tier decoration core

[Anonymous No.5887331]

>>5887322
You're creating. Something. Anything.

[Anonymous No.5887336]

>>5887322
"Swastika in the kitchen drain"

[Anonymous No.5887339]

I title this collection: "Between the Wake"

[Anonymous No.5887340]

>>5887313
>You are way less intelligent than your tone is voice is trying to imply.
tripfags in a nutshell

[Anonymous No.5887342]

>>5887326
it's like socialist realism without the socialism

[Anonymous No.5887348]

Last one.

[Anonymous No.5887352]

>>5887339
"Empty anal cavity with hemorrhoid"

[Anonymous No.5887354]

I don't blame you guys. Negativity and criticism(not critique) is fun to write and to read. But how about you post things YOU find attractive? Your professors aren't 100% right about all things, you know.

[Anonymous No.5887355]

>>5887348
"Worms Armageddon"

[Anonymous No.5887358]

>>5887348
I actually truly like this one.

[Anonymous No.5887359]

>>5887354
I like this painting. Looking at it makes me feel like pressure in my head and eyes is released, it's quite a weird effect.

[Anonymous No.5887361]

>>5887348
"Snow subsiding dull mountain"

[Anonymous No.5887366]

>>5887354
there is so much good art I wouldn't know where to start

[Anonymous No.5887368]

>>5887359
I can feel the brisk wind on my face, looking at this piece. The salty air.

[Anonymous No.5887371]

[Anonymous No.5887373]

>>5887368
hey is that the boss from the underwater zone in world of warcraft? so nice to see kids learning to appreciate art even if it is just video game illustrations

[None !trap0OylHY No.5887374]

>>5887204
If museums die they will die. There is an absurd number of works that are lost, and there will be many more lost through time. In any case you'll never be in front of them all.
You can care for what's in your potential grasp without worrying about what will happen to people around the world in the future.

>>5887208
I don't really get your point. There is art made to incite discussion, many of them will be shortly discussed and then forgotten while a few will be remembered through the years until they become a part of a certain canon and are left for people to dedicate years to thoroughly analyze and write books about it.
It's, like, something people do with their lives, you know?

>>5887211
I'm always fearing that I'm falling for some current trend, but it gets easier to understand if you read more about it. What most people call postmodernism has little to do with their expansion on modernist ideas, and its way more serious than whatever newsincerity thing is going on. It's also more in depth and serious, just as it is open to people saying they disagree with it. You can become a formalist if you want, you can do whatever you want and if your sincere with it the worst that will happen is that you'll look back at it as a silly stepping stone into something else.
SO, read more and do more and worry less.

>>5887218
You sound petty.

>>5887231
Nah, he wasn't. He was a hardcore marxist who just happened to be jew and both of those things were bad in germany at the time.

>>5887235
Why not?
I get your point that starting with a painting to talk about economy makes that a economy essay that mentions an art work. But you can make an essay with the work as a premise and you can analyze a particular aspect of the work and so on.

>>5887240
It's all the same. Some would even sort of call it an evolution from one to the other.
Usually people who like modern art have seen more than enough classical art (and know where to find more) so they don't bitch that there isn't enough.

>>5887257
No, it's an introductory thread.

[Anonymous No.5887375]

>>5887366
Post anything. Anything that honors human craft and idea.

[Anonymous No.5887378]

[Anonymous No.5887383]

>>5887375
I would but Moot doesn't let me upload the Age of Empires 2 .exe file

[Anonymous No.5887384]

[Anonymous No.5887386]

How much could this go for?

[Anonymous No.5887387]

Now I'm not even sure if art even exists.

[Anonymous No.5887391]

[Anonymous No.5887395]

>>5887386
Are you the same guy that did
>>5887339
>>5887322
>>5887311
>>5887301
>>5887348

[Anonymous No.5887396]

>>5887374
I'm baffled by how the more I read actual postmodernist the more I actually see them agreeing with me, people on /lit/ either haven't actually read it or have terribly misunderstood it
These guys were fucking in LOVE with classical art and they've written a lot more about it than about any of their contemporaries

>>5887375
it was fun but i'm going to bed

[Anonymous No.5887401]

>>5887395
No.

[Anonymous No.5887402]

>>5887395
No

[Anonymous No.5887404]

>>5887386
Guys hurry my client is getting impatient

[Anonymous No.5887409]

>>5887404
I would buy it for $5.

[Anonymous No.5887412]

>>5887409
How much would you think my client would buy it for?

[Anonymous No.5887418]

>>5887412
$20 poster sized.

[somethingorother !trap0OylHY No.5887422]

>>5887294
You know that kitsch originated as a completely valid art style, right? It's just not in vogue this century, or rather it has been captured by the masses, it will go back at some point.

>>5887313
>persuading yourself through argument that it's good.
That's what you call thinking things?

I'm sorry if I sound pissy or something, I'll put the happy pics again to compensate, okay?

I can't find where I said "These are", if you mean the first answer I was just saying that it something that losts of people do in the world, easily millions at all times. You can not like it, but it's as valid as anything a lot of people do.

>>5887340
I completly agree that people read anything with a trip with anger for some reasson.

>>5887354
I don't get the professor part.

>>5887373
I like you

>>5887387
It exists at the level that people inherently feel it some times. Now, some people want to put a counter between the work and the people and measure the feeling or something, that's silly. You can still sit and think about that feeling and enjoy doing it.

>>5887396
>people on /lit/ either haven't actually read it

>>5887412
Do you have it printed or only digital?
If it's a decent print you could maybe push it $2000 if its for some company lobby or something.

[Anonymous No.5887434]

>>5887211
>60s when postmodernism started to become all the rage and all this modern art was coming out, n


>modern art started coming out in the 60s

[Anonymous No.5887437]

>>5887422
The professor part is because /lit/ is comprised of students. Aged between 19-25.

[Anonymous No.5887439]

>>5887422
>It exists at the level that people inherently feel it some times. Now, some people want to put a counter between the work and the people and measure the feeling or something, that's silly. You can still sit and think about that feeling and enjoy doing it.
Would you agree with OP that it used to be a craft to master?

[life as a grad student !trap0OylHY No.5887441]

>>5887434
when people hurry a lot for the next fad they rarely have time to learn general history of the subject

[Anonymous No.5887442]

>>5887439
The past is something to learn about, not live in.

[Anonymous No.5887449]

>>5887439
>Would you agree with OP that it used to be a craft to master?

How could he? It's historical fact.

[Anonymous No.5887456]

The image is the definition of pretentiousness.

[purururururu !trap0OylHY No.5887459]

>>5887437
Yeah, but what was the point of mentioning? I then assumed it was to prompt not so classical works to be posted, but I've seen threads go in a more square direction in posting terms.

>>5887439
n-no, what? why?
You can learn a craft and use it to make art, but it could never be a craft in itself. I can see a certain artist mastering a certain style they find interesting, but you can't sit and learn "art". When you study you try to prepare a field where ideas can grow, but those ideas can't be taught. Some people learn tons of technique and they still don't have anything to do with it, they don't allow themselves to do it, or whatever problem they might have, and they just mastered a craft without being able to give it any use.

>>5887442
way 2 kool, man!

[Anonymous No.5887465]

>>5887459
The point was to make note of the character of the posters that this thread is participating in. College students that study art can be pigeonholed pretty easy.

[Anonymous No.5887467]

daily reminder that sculpture is dead and painting is not far behind

[Anonymous No.5887478]

>mfw Salvador Dali was the last great painter of the modern age

[Anonymous No.5887483]

>>5887467
who cares when i have video games and movies

[i'm getting zizeked here !trap0OylHY No.5887500]

>>5887465
That kind of opinions always makes me think of the kid that starts seeing other friends and his close group says that he has been turned by that other group. Of course students will have a period in which the works they have present in their minds are the ones their teacher showed them more, it's not being a poor pigeonholded kid not smart enough to avoid the treacherous hand of academia but just going through a certain stage in your growth.

>>5887467
I don't see how could we physically get the materials even if it became a thing to have marble real size statues.
If you accept any material I'm sad to say that the market for sort of like like looking creations of the mind has been captured by Japan.

>>5887483
>I think screen art is more than one medium

[Anonymous No.5887508]

>>5887467
ever heard of 3d printers fag? sculpture is about to come back with a fury, assuming by "sculpture" you mean three dimensional compositions, not chiseling homoerotic forms out of marble...

[Anonymous No.5887520]

>>5887500
>I think screen art is more than one medium
Nobody said they were different mediums
nobody who's not a moron thinks the two aren't vastly separate things, more so than painting and sculpture

[i know you're sure i'm wrong b(...) !trap0OylHY No.5887540]

>>5887520
vidja and movies are just as close as marble status and chess boards. Meanwhile the aspects of painting don't relate to sculpture and viceversa.

>>5887508
I would love if there were genres of art divided by method of creation and sexual message and materials. It would have a name made out of two greek words that don't relate to it at all but sound cool.

[Anonymous No.5887571]

>>5885874
>art
http://www.vocativ.com/underworld/sex/oh-god-whats-happening-close-personal-terry-richardson-model/

[Anonymous No.5887624]

I've ranted about modern art enough over the years, and I'm in too good a mood tonight. Here's an antidote.

[Anonymous No.5887626]

postmetakolsti.tumblr.com
proof that art has gone to complete shit

[Anonymous No.5887641]

>>5887626
tl;dr

but here's a tumblr that doesn't suck

http://kidmograph.tumblr.com/

[Anonymous No.5887642]

>>5885874
>289 replies and 70 images omitted. Click here to view.

[Anonymous No.5887727]

>>5885874
WHY BEAUTY MATTERS:

http://vimeo.com/101804860

[Anonymous No.5887737]

>>5887459
If the art is painting, that's the craft (painting). C'mon, dude.