>three stripes of color made in 34 seconds
>92 million dollars
Have you ever noticed how none of the people who complain about modern art ever seem to know anything about pre-modern art either?
>>1281438
Is this supposed to be what passes for a defense of Mark Rothko?
LOL
>>1281438
Yeah, I have.
>art must conform to what I think art is or art should be
Every thread.
>>1281657
By that retarded definition of art, everything is art. This post is art.
You just want to define art away into nothingness while pretending you're enlightened for doing so.
>>1281662
What is your point here?
Is the problem with the three stripes, or the 92 millions ?
Because Rothko is not responsible for the rich fucks who use his art as a tax haven.
Now if you had posted something by Damien Hirst, it would be different.
>>1281672
That there's nothing erudite or intellectual about the desire to turn concepts into meaningless magical entities.
It's voodoo logic, and only idiots think it's clever.
>2deep4u
>>1281662
everything artificial is art. it's just a question of whether it's good art or not. rothko painting are art
>>1281689
So you are saying art can only be what you say it is? Okay. Why are you even talking about it if you don't understand it?
>>1281699
accidentally hit enter.
rothko paintings are art but they didn't take a lot of skill to make and aren't interesting to look at so they're not good art.
>>1281699
>>1281704
If everything man made is art, then art is a useless term. Also, we're clearly talking about the culture surrounding Mark Rothko and others like him that allows his uninteresting works to be put up in museums and galleries and sold for millions.
>>1281701
What are you talking about? I'm creating art. Every post I make is art, faggot.
>>1281438
I took a college course in art history, I was upset that we skipped over a lot of peices I wanted to learn about but once we hit modern art I could just feel the pretentiousness the artists put into them.
Most abstract art is just terrible. That one group just made it to say"Fuck you dad!" too that French Academy. The rest decided that they didn't need to learn through years of disipline and training to throw paint at a board and demand cash.
>>1281726
>If everything man made is art, then art is a useless term.
it's not a useless term. art basically just means skill. obviously anything man made requires some degree of skill, but when people use the term art or say something is artfully made, they usually mean something made with a high degree of skill.
>>1281747
Well, you just changed the definition from everything man made to everything man made with a high degree of skill.
I think the latter definition is more to the point, and more what is colloquially considered to be art, and why most people innately reject Rothko and a lot of what is called modern art.
>>1281430
>made in 34 seconds
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
>>1281757
>Well, you just changed the definition from everything man made to everything man made with a high degree of skill.
it's both. bad art is art that didn't require a high degree of skill and good art is art that did.
>>1281763
Fine it took some hours to dry.
So 4 hours and 34 seconds. Happy?
>>1281767
>He thinks there's only one layer of paint
Sure is uneducated in here.
It's just another way for rich people to launder money
>>1281770
That canvas looks as though it was done less professionally than the walls of my house were.
>>1281770
Several layers of paint culminate into that ugly painting?
Damn, it's like you're asking for modern art to be even more laughed at.
>>1281689
What did he mean by this?
Meanwhile capitalists make billions of dollars having 10 year old Chinese kids sow sneakers; but your outrage is towards rich people making valuable things for each other.
>>1281430
Color field paintings are extremely popular. They add color to and brighten up areas where they're put, and look especially nice with modern furnishings. I see them in most houses I visit.
Peopple also like them because they're pretty unpretentious and aren't huge conversation pieces, unlike hanging classical artwork
.So yeah, people would pay a lot of money to obtain an original Rothko, since he with others started a hugely popular trend in art and design.
>>1281430
I don't care what idiotic mental masturbation fools engage in. It fills me with glee that a retard gave 92 million of his dollars for that garbage.
>>1281942
The retard is intending to sell it for 150 millions in ten years, and will likely be able to do so.
Did you think millionaires buy this stuff because they really like it ?
>>1281657
>art must conform to what I think art is or art
should be
That's literally the whole point of the "modern-art" crowd. Chasing artists who want to do different things away, to other industries like movies.
>>1281806
>rich people making valuable things for each other
maybe that is how they launder their sweatshop profits
>>1281872
But why buy an original then if you can get an exact replica for $15? The colors are all the same, why pay millions for it?
>>1282163
Why buy a $15 dollar replica when you can get the exact same result from asking your kid to paint it in art class with the available supplies?
>>1281430
Art is subjective.
>>1282261
Then why do we hace standards?
>>1282163
>exact replica for $15
What do you mean by this? You could get a reduced size paper print of a Rothko for $15, sure. But cost of materials alone, a reproduction would cost a couple hundred. One of the things about Rothkos that makes them valuable is how they look in person, how the light hits the paint, their texture and so forth. It's not something you can really see from looking at a picture on the internet, or on a print. I'm not going to claim that other artists can't replicate the effect very effectively, but it's a very cool thing to see in person.
>Why buy an original?
Same reason why anyone would buy any other piece of original artwork, very expensive wine, a very expensive car, a first-pressing Thelonious Monk album, a suit of 16th century armor, a lock of my nostril hair, a Montagnana cello, etc., even though reasonable reproductions of these things exist. They have value because of their history, scarcity and/or because they were close to a famous person.
$95 million is a lot to spend on anything, admittedly, but I guess if you got the money...
>>1282257
Laughs were had.
>>1282163
you could say the same of any painting. why buy any original when you could get a cheap perfect replica from Dafen Village?
>>1282264
Standards are also subjective.
Standards for art is simply you applying your subjective notions on what constitutes good art.
>>1281430
rothko is all about the brush strokes. there's real lyricism there.
>>1281430
Wow that piece of shit is tasteless.
>>1282282
No, there's a reason my son's thanksgiving fingerpaint art is not on par with The starry night. Saying everything is subjective is the first way to spot someone who knows jack shit but still tries to sound smart. The existannce of a universal standard is very different from acknowledging certain objectivity in the medium.
There is this thing called money laundering. The largest criminal organizations use art as their device to turn drug money into spendable money because "you can't put a price on it".
>mass-produced picture book shat out of a printer in 10 minutes
>3.2 million dollars
>>1282370
I don't think anyone is claiming that old comics are high art, but a popular thing that a lot of autists like to collect.
>>1282382
>implying there aren't autists in the art world
>>1281430
hush, you. there is an le message deep within xD
>>1282383
But it's celebrated within the art community to be an autist.
So how did we go from this to that? Are details too ableist against people who can't paint or something?
>>1285920
Wow, it's almost like there are free and ccomprehensive art history resources online that you can read and not have to ask idiotic and hostile questions about things you know nothing about.
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/abex/hd_abex.htm
It's not art. It's pseudo-intellectual bullshit. It's a sign of how decadent and perverse a society has become.
>the purpose of art is not to constantly revolutionize its own meaning and reflect the culture of its time, but to achieve photorealism
>>1285978
>reflect the culture of its time
"Ayy homeboy, how am I meant to portray the confusing times we are experiencing, in which the notions of government, supranationality, the right to self-governance, clash of cultures are being challenged? Surely this is material for a rich painting".
"Tell you what, make the painting have three colors xD. Confusing eh?"
"You are of genius!"
>>1285978
Photorealism is not really the point.
It's literally three fucking stripes. Any meaning you can attach to it is a product of your own imagination, which could potentially be rich, but going by that logic a detached branch from a tree is art too.
As I said, it's pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and I can't help it but laugh at people who pretend it means anything, and admire ''artists'' who make mad money from try-hard pseudo-intellectuals.
>i cant appreciate the beauty of pure color and shape: the thread
jesus faggots, this type of art was born out of the idea that you need not know about grand historical events, famous people, etc. in order to enjoy art, that even a peasant in a farm or a kid in an african tribe could have appreciation for somethig as simple as shapes and color
there's barely any sociopolitical meaning in these types of abstract art (not referring to the stuff like "beat the whites with the red wedge") and people telling you that its a critique of capitalism or some other dog shit is lying. its just color and shape. that simple. why cant you appreciate something as simple as color and shape? or are you too high on your pseudointellectual high horse?
Isn't modern art just another example of Jewish subversion?
>make shit art
>use influence in media to advertise it as high art to the Gentiles
>make money and subvert gentile society by twisting their ideas about art at the same time
Rothko was a Jew, wasn't he?
>>1282370
That's different, okay its mass produced and the art isn't great but that comic book marks the first appearance of an american cultural icon. Nearly 80 years later there almost isn't a person alive in the western world who doesn't know who Superman is or what he looks like so it's value lies in it's cultural significance as arguably the first "superhero" story rather than it's quality. I can't create a character who has that kind of mysticism and appeal, but I can damn sure paint three crude rectangles on a canvas.
>>1286184
This art is way more inaccessible to the rural farmer or African child than other genres. The rural farmer of African child wouldn't even consider this art, they would just think it's unremarkable shapes and colors. Show those same individuals an exciting scene and they will appreciate it.
Modern art: 1900-1939
""""""Modern art"""""""": 1945-1980
((("Modern" """"""art"""""))): 1980-
pic related: modern art
Art is a money laundering scam.
>>1281438
>I'm not a pleb, evry1 els is just stopid
>>1281430
It's about intent, but could an unknown artist have made this and sold it for the same amount?
>>1281739
I studied history if art at university. (I know).
I've also studied drawing and painting.
I don't hate modernism at all. There are a lot of great contemporary artists and illustrators. It's conceptual art which is complete trash IMO.
>>1281430
>such depth
>much meaning
>>1281430
> three stripes of color made in 34 seconds
Are you seriously implying that picture so big could be painted in 34 seconds? I would pay you 92$ if you would be able to do that. But you wouldn't even if I would pay you full 92000000$, because you are retard who doesn't even know how painting looks IRL.
Daily reminder that:
early 20th century art>post-1945 "art"
>>1286308
in order to fully appreciate that work the person must know greek myth, the concept of rape, why rape is bad, what gold is, that the white people in the work are actually humans, and so on.
in order to enjoy malevich you simply need a concept of space and color which all humans with eyes have regardless of knowledge of the world
>>1286845
That's doesn't even look like Hector and Andromache.
>>1286905
ok
Is selling art for large amounts of money inherently counter revolutionary?
What is proletarian art?
>inb4 gommie
>>1286897
You can appreciate that image to a high degree by looking at it without knowing the myth, a lot more than the two shapes. Hell, the farmer and African child might even learn something interesting about mythology if they ask the curator what the piece means or maybe they will invent an exciting, vivid story to explain the scene on their own.
Maybe cultural engineering by the CIA and money laundering are art, they reflect human nature.
Though I wish modern art was more like an offshoot of art deco rather than just a ton of random bullshit.
>>1285978
Nah, the purpose should be to create shapes and forms which instill emotions that make it worth to have created the shapes in the first place I would say.
>>1281657
Critical theory the post.
Hang youself fag
>>1281430
Good to laundry money!
>>1281430
Would you pay 92 million dollars for this? Or even 9 cents? Doubtful, but then that isnt the point either.
Art isnt something whose worth and enjoyment can be measured by monetary value. Stop caring so much about what dumb rich people do with their money.
>>1286974
Art for the people would be art that wouldn't try to alienate the subject from his cultural milieu by promoting globalist ideologies such as consumerism or socialism.
>>1286995
Awful.
>>1286981
i am talking about fully appreciating the work and not simply appreciating it to a high degree. there is no doubt that you can appreciate rembrandt's painting without knowing myth. however, compare these two paintings with regards to fully (keyword) appreciating them. malevich simply requires you to have eyes and the ability to process visual information while rembrandt requires knowledge of myth. adding figures from antiquity was quite literally the norm in academies that taught painting then as it gave the impression of the patron being knowledgeable about worldly things. see poussin's writings on historical painting about this point
>>1287040
Well, three stripes of color made in 34 seconds that was sold for 92 million dollars certainly can instill some very strong emotions into people as we can see in action here.
>>1281430
Let a fool be robbed of his money and a smart NEET become a millionaire. I see no problem. One less socialist (that is frustrated and envious) "artist/intellectual" in the world.
>>1287092
But were the 34seconds worth to instill this emotion?
Im getting the impression modern art is a giant trolljob.
>>1286974
i like this article explaining how suprematism is art for the proletarians: http://www.e-flux.com/journal/becoming-revolutionary-on-kazimir-malevich/
>>1285943
>the artists made monumentally scaled works that stood as reflections of their individual psyches—and in doing so, attempted to tap into universal inner sources
Fuck this particular form of faggotry. I hate when artists think they can pull off the work of philosophers or prophets
>>1281430
>>1287148
I should also point out
>attempted to tap into universal inner sources
The easy answer to all this bullshit is that they failed. They incredibly quirky and retarded method of "tapping into the universal" failed
>>1285978
the culture of our time is three sloppily painted boxes of varying colour and size?
really makes you think
>>1287086
>Awful.
I'd rather an artist try and fail than see more cartoons and random bullshit.
Besides, it is an ordeal finding decent artwork post ww2 thanks to all this.
>>1281662
http://www.recode.net/2014/8/2/11629454/this-post-is-art-framed-4chan-post-sells-for-90900-on-ebay
>modern art
>anything other than a money laundering scheme
top jej
Post art that took some actual talent to produce
>>1287385
>>1286974
>What is proletarian art?
graffiti
>>1281430
Best painting coming through
>>1285995
You don't get it. The entire point is that it isn't intellectual. Hanging some classical painting on your wall makes you look like a pretentious fag, but modern art is just nice decoration. It's the basic appeal of colours and shapes.
People who complain about modern art being "pseudo-intellectual" are always projecting to be honest.
>>1287442
While I will unironically defend modern art on every platform except its criminal element, that's gotta be my all time fave.
>>1287442
Can someone explain?
>>1287464
> Basically cossacks inventing shit posting.
Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan!
O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil's kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are you, that can't slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil excretes, and your army eats. You will not, you son of a bitch, make subjects of Christian sons; we've no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck your mother.
You Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw your own mother!
So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won't even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we'll conclude, for we don't know the date and don't own a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!
>>1281438
Art History minor, is that qualified enough to call out Rothko for being shit tier?
Fucking faggots trying to defend a million dollar painting because the only good aspect of a painting is the impasto and lighting in person.
>its justified because it looks better in person
>it fits in better with modern interior design
Is this a fucking meme now? Acting like how the painting is meant to be viewed in person is revolutionary or some bullshit?
You could say the same shit about Impressionist painters, and it would have more justification. At least the aim of their movement was about lighting and achieving impasto effects.
>>1287490
Why did le million dollar painting need a defending? It isn't a crime to be sold for a high price.
>>1287423
>manual dexterity is a meme
kys tbqh
>>1287499
it is when they're literally using it to clean dirty money
>>1287506
its being circlejerked as a good painting to death at this point. thus, its a meme
>>1282163
Because the price is so high not because people actually enjoy it but because there's a huge demand for it
>>1287515
you're retarded
>>1287499
Its not the price, but the justification of calling it a movement.
Its separatist bullshit that does not differentiate from each other. Try to reason out why Abstract Expressionism and Minimalism are different.
Its the semantics of a barely differentiating art movement. Its as stale as any old art movement school that hasn't changed for centuries. Yet it constantly feels the need to reinvent itself because its modern.
>>1287476
Based Cossacks
Why don't you fedoras just go look at photographs if realism and non-symbolism is so important? Or better yet - stare at nature and just go outside. Oh wait-
>>1281696
I have always thought this is the best example of modern art;
Cleverly Packaged Crap
>>1281430
It's a good way of tax free money exchange.
>he likes figurative, representative painting
wew
ill giv u $92 2 succ my rothcock
No one has posted this, really?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI
>>1288597
This guy is so salty about his inability to appreciate art that he's started to take pride in it.
Is video gayme modern art?
>>1288621
no buy vidyakino is the greatest artform of the 21st century
>>1286974
Murals ordered by our Glorious Leaders displayed on the Culture House tovarich.
>>1287388
pepe edit when
>>1281651
it's a defence of art in general. you don't need to pick sides
>>1281430
>a single moment in art history that existed for about a decade in one particular cultural context
>modern art
hahaha
>>1286897
>know greek myth
Didn't even know it was greek myth, thought it was Celtic or Slavic
>concept of rape
Such a foreign concept
>why rape is bad
Not at all necessary
>what gold is
Are we talking about rural farmers or deaf blind mutes?
>that the white people in the work are actually humans
Don't know how this is required.
>>1287385
This is why stuff like this blows shit like op's pic the fuck out.
There is no need for the artist or the curator to explain the meaning of the pic, or what it symbolizes.
A man need only to look at it and realize the point the artist wanted to make.
>>1285943
I like this guy a lot.
>>1281662
your post had nothing to do with the one you were replying to. i know you had to get that argument off your chest but pick the right moment
>>1281689
maybe its meaningless was the point. it's supposed to be an object not some magic window
>>1281704
they're not interesting to look at as a 260x447 jpg but part of american abstraction is actually seeing the materiality of the work. the paint as it has seeped into the canvas, etc. it's about surface, which is something a digital image can't really capture. also you don't know anything about the skill or the process in making the work
>>1281739
you should get a refund
>>1281765
skill isn't artness
>>1281872
yeah this
>>1282163
provenance. the 'aura' of the original
>>1282261
i don't know what this means
>>1282358
your son is about 100 years too late to be in on the expressionist post-impressionism thing. sorry
>>1282406
there isn't but that doesn't make it bad
>>1285920
there was no way to render the human form more accurately or produce the same scenes in any new, innovative way. the path from that to colour field is interesting but often ignored when people complain about modern art
>>1285989
rothko isn't trying to portray the times but his art is a consequence of them i.e. the proliferation of material wealth. art has always been design
>>1286357
this is pretty good but i wouldn't call post-1980 'modern'. that stops around 68
>>1286420
conceptual art is great
>>1286845
at least someone can differentiate between different styles in modern art
>>1287040
>instill emotions
what did he mean by this?
>>1287211
rothko isn't really our time though. formalism is a historical form of analysis in art history now, not a current one
>>1287385
>>1287388
every time
>>1287490
>Art History minor, is that qualified enough to call out Rothko for being shit tier?
art history major -- no
>>1287522
minimalism is a response and a rejection of abstract expression. also it is sculpture
>>1288785
no one has to explain a rothko. it just is. it's even more free of narrative than the pic you posted
>>1287385
>>1288785
>Ilya Repin
every fucking time lmao
>>1288839
>this autist who thinks anyone gives this much of shit about his opinion
>>1288852
art historical lit isn't really my opinions but no i don't think people care any more than you think i care about your post
>>1288845
Yes, it just is.
But it's shit.
Art isn't supposed to just be, that's pure laziness. Art is meant to invigorate and inspire the imagination of the viewer, to make him think outside his bubble.
You can do this with modern art, true. Take, for example, Zdzisław Beksiński or Lucian Freud, who painted gruesome shit that still inspired the mind,
But Rothko and Pollock were just lazy degenerates that wanted to make quick buck off of easily impressed pseudo intellectual snobs
>>1288839
All me btw
>>1288857
Yeah but he didn't write a fucking article
>>1288860
>But it's shit.
it fulfills its purpose. i don't know what else you expect of a work or why you do, for that matter
>Art is meant to invigorate and inspire the imagination of the viewer, to make him think outside his bubble.
is that the law?
>>1288864
next time when i talk about art in a thread about art i'll make sure to reply to each post separately, just so you feel more comfortable in sharing the thread
>>1288871
My point was that you're wasting time on a chinese poetry imageboard, replying to idiots who'll skip your reply
>>1288876
i don't care about them. i care about the people interested in art. if you're not one of them then i don't know why you're here replying to me
>>1288868
But truly, what is its purpose? Earn some money? I suppose that is an admirable goal, in its own manner, and if Rothko admitted this I'd admire him more.
If the purpose of art is just to exist then everything everywhere is art
>>1288880
>>1288876
He's right. Too much stupid shit gets pushed and circulated on /his/. Some of it creeps its way in the back of our minds only to serve as a creaky foundation for future thoughts, if we aren't careful.
It's important to have a voice out if you think it's a worthwhile voice to be heard. Its absence will not be missed, but its presence is important for that very reason.
>>1288890
its purpose is to be an arrangement of paint on a canvas, hung on a wall. it's honest about what it is and is free from being subordinate to literature. it's not pretending to be something it isn't and maybe that offends people who still believe in the transcendence of art and don't see it for what is has always been; design and craft for decoration and status
>>1288772
you're dabbling too much on the specifics anon. i just gave those as a supplement to my major argument that abstract art requires little to no sensory experience to be fully appreciated
i literally am just espousing malevich's words so go read him as im surely not giving his argument justice
>>1281657
>>art must conform to what we think art is or art should be
ftfy and yes absolutely.
>>1288612
He has some good points though. If you can't clearly explain what is good about a piece, it probably isn't good. And falling back on buzzwords doesn't count as explaining.
>>1281696
this is a protest against modern art actually
there's no actual shit inside
>>1288597
Lord is this guy insufferable
>>1289008
You can't really explain what's good about any piece. Sure, you can point out how technically impressive the skill it took to make it is but that doesn't necessarily make it artistically enjoyable.
And that really is what "Objective standards" amounts to, quantifying art based on the skill and labour it took to make it (basically LTV, which is ironic since PJW is a hardcore libertarian). Really the quality of art is only apparent in how it appears to the observer ultimately making it subjective. It's very hard to be convinced that a piece of art is good, you can only assess the quality of it by seeing it and once you've done that you can't really be convinced of it's quality or dissauded from enjoying it. Through the course of your life you might change your mind, but your sudden appreciation or distaste for the art wouldn't make a difference to your younger self if you could tell them.
Likewise some people just happen to like art that makes them feel intellectually-superior. The fact that it instills that emotion alone gives it meaning to them, even if they may never explicitly put it like that.
>>1282358
>the existence of a universal standard
I think you misspelled "non-existence", bro.
>caring so much that someone paid millions of dollars for something they enjoyed
How autistic do you have to be?
>>1281438
BTFO
T
F
O
>>1289214
Because that money could've been spent on something that improves humanity as a whole
>>1289412
So could the money you're spending on internet right now.
>>1289412
truly, collectivist scum are the worst
hey, what the fuck are you doing wasting time on 4chan when you could be doing something that could beenfit the rest of the world???
>>1289421
100 dollars more for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
>>1289424
The fact that I'm a hypocritical shithead that wastes his money has nothing to do with what a waste of money buying the painting is.
And please, 100 dollars is literally nothing
>>1289421
$100 is a lot of soup cans for the homeless.
>>1289429
Perhaps not, but you must ask yourself why you choose to spend money on luxuries rather than for humanitarian purposes?
To same reasons apply to people who spend millions on paintings, they want to enjoy themselves.
The way I see it, art should be judged by two standards. The exoteric aesthetic value rendered by skill which serves as a common denominator and the symbolic esoteric value which adds depth to the piece for the enjoyment and intellectual stimulation of the elite.
The exoteric layer being a prerequisite for the value of the esoteric layer.
>>1289480
Anyone could make anything to be an art, anyone could justice art is he wants. If you can appreciate technical skill that is good, I could care less about author skill, personal life, how much time or efforts he spared on picture and so on.
>>1288839
>There was no other way to render the human form any more accurately.
If that's all you think there is to representational/figurative art then I'm a bit dismayed. There's so much more to it than just representing something realistically. God, what an uneducated opinion. Are you sure you studied Art?
Art should in my opinion be a mixture of craft (using compositional techniques for example to achieve a desired effect on the viewer) and something intellectually stimulating.
Too much of the former and you have illustration or a traditional craft of some kind. Too much of the latter and your have pure intellectual navel gazing.
Can someone show me an example of interesting conceptual art? I genuinely would like to be enthused by it but I can't help but think it's an opportunity for talentless self promoters to make a shit load of money. E.g. Tracey emin.
>>1288597
I should respect the opinion of someone so uneducated he thinks 'Kunst' is a dirty German word? Lol.
>>1288839
this post is art lol, u r making a statement on autism
Art has to be thought provoking and must ellicit questions in the mind of the beholder.
In the case of Rothko, the seasoned art lover will be faced with the deepest questionning of all: "how do I even know if this shit isn't hung upside down?"
>>1290342
It makes you ask the question "What is art?", therefore it fulfilled its purpose.
It's interesting that totalitarian regimes couldn't tolerate abstract art. Like there's something in it that provoked them.
>>1290404
Agreed, i was kidding.
However I feel like a lot of contemporary abstract feels somewhat redundant, but that might just be me.
>>1281438
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
>>1287385
>>1281430
Pretentious retards WILL defend this
>>1281806
>Child labor is bad meme
>>1281430
Just wanted to say this is a truly beautiful painting. Thank you for sharing.
>implying all modern art is shit
>>1281430
artfag here. In my opinion, art should have some actual value, with that I mean it should contain some work and emotion, a passion in it. With modern art, they say that the reaction to it is more of the art work rather than, a literal piece of shit in the middle of the gallery, for egsample. But in most cases, people just pretend to have some deep thought into it, they actually make some random shit first, and when force themselves to generate some pseudo-philosophy revolving around the work.
>>1282274
Because the perception of skill is there
>>1290577
I'm a capitalist and I will defend it too.
>>1290254
H
I
G
H
THICC
E
S
T
A lot of modern shit is just postmodern creative bankruptcy nonsense.
Though every now and then, people like Bob Ross paint something that's nice
>>1290412
Try examining the sense of redundancy more closely, or in a different light next time. The most important, concrete part of art IMO is your interaction with it. Artist be damned.
The symptom of decline in creative power is the fact that to produce something round and complete the artist now requires to be emancipated from form and proportion. Its most obvious though not its most significant, manifestation is the taste for the gigantic. Here size is not, as in the Gothic and the Pyramid styles, the expression of inward greatness, but the dissimulation of its absence. This swaggering in specious dimensions is common to all nascent Civilizations--we find it in the Zeus altar of Pergamum, the Helios of Chares called the "Colossus of Rhodes," the architecture of the Roman Imperial Age, the New Empire work in Egypt, and American skyscraper of today. ....
Between Wagner and Manet there is a deep relationship, which is not, indeed obvious to everyone but which Baudelaire with his unerring flair for the decadent detected at once. For the Impressionists, the end and the culmination of art was the conjuring up of a world in space out of strokes and patches of colour, and this was just what Wagner achieved in three bars. A whole world of soul could crowd into these three bars. ... Here the contrast of Western music with greek plastic has reached its maximum. Everything merges in bodiless infinity, o longer even does a linear melody wrestle itself clear of the vague tone-masses that in strange surgings challenge an imaginary space. The motive comes up out of dark terrible deeps. It is flooded for an instant by a flash of hard bright sun. then, suddenly, it is so close upon us that we shrink...
>>1291055
All that Nietzsche says of Wagner is applicable, also, to Manet. Ostensibly a return to the elemental, to Nature, as against contemplation-painting and abstract music, their art really signifies a concession to the barbarism of the Megalopolis, the beginning of dissolution sensibly manifested in a mixture of brutality and refinement. As a step, it is necessarily the last step. An artificial art has no further organic future, it is the mark of the end.
And the bitter conclusion is that it is all irretrievably over with the arts of form of the West. The crisis of the nineteenth century was the death-struggle. Like the Apollinian, the Egyptian and every other, the Faustian art dies of senility, having actualized its inward possibilities and fulfilled its mission within the course of its Culture
>>1291036
Damn, those are some happy little trees.
I saw this one being made in that /tv/ marathon a while ago, it's amazing how simple he makes it all look.
>>1291057
What is practiced as art today--be it music after Wagner or painting after Manet, Cézanne, Leible and Menzel-- is impotence and falsehood. One thing is quite certain, that today every single art-school could be shut down without art being affected in the slightest. We can learn all we wish to know about the art-clamour which a megalopolis sets up in order to forget that its art is dead form the Alexandria of the year 200. There, as here in our world-cities, we find a pursuit of illusions of artistic progress, of personal peculiarity, of "the new style," of "unsuspected possibilities," theoretical babble, pretentious fashionable artists, weight-lifters with cardboard dumb-bells--the "Literary Man" in the Poet's place, the unabashed farce of Expressionism, which the art-trade has organized as a "phase of art-history," thinking and felling and forming as industrial art. Alexandria, too, had problem-dramatists and box-office artists whom it preferred to Sophocles and painters who invented new tendencies and successfully bluffed their public. The final result is that endless industrious repetition of a stock of fixed forms which we see today in Indian Chinese and Arabian-persian art. Pictures and fabrics, verses and vessels, furniture, dramas and musical compositions--all is pattern-work. We cease to be able to date anything within centuries, let alone decades, by the language of its ornamentation. So it has been in the Last Act of all Cultures.
>>1291036
modern art =/= contemporary art. huuuuuuge distinction anon
>>1287385
>recreate scene
>take a photo
There now you know why modern art isn't about talent
>>1291226
Painters aren't human photocopiers your fool. A painter thinks about details to include and not include. A painter has to be aware of how he wants the viewer to see and interpret his brushstrokes across his painting. He uses negative space and texture to facilitate this. there is so much more to painting than composition. A painter is more of an illusionist than a camera.
>Most good music is in tune, has melody, the musicians can play their instruments.
>Good contemporary dance, the performers can dance.
>Good theatre is written be people who can write and it is performed by actors who can act.
>Good film is made by filmmakers who can compose and shoot a scene.
>Good visual art is whatever you want. Technical knowledge not required. You can be a professor of drawing at the Royal Academy if you want.
Spot the odd one out.
>>1291507
>If you want
Should be
>If you're famous and rich enough.
/his/ has no idea about art. I vividly remember one guy who insisted that the pre-Raphaelites were actual medieval artists, painting actual medieval scenes, because he thought pre-Raphaelite meant all the artists who came before Raphael.
>>1291507
>>Most good music is in tune, has melody, the musicians can play their instruments.
do you live in a cave or what?
>>1291607
So you enjoy music by people who can't play their own instruments? What kind of retard are you?
>>1291613
Have you ever heard of noise? Musique concrète? Any sort of Avant genre? /his/ has worse autists than /sci/, and yet they still think they are "cultured"
>>1291643
>>>Noise
>>>Music
I'll admit you do have a point. However I'm sure the musicians who create this stuff have some technical knowledge which was the main thrust of my green texting. I admit I probably shouldn't have put melody/tune in there as you're right, there are genres which eschew these elements.
However, correct me if I'm wrong but those avant garde genres are by no means as prominent within music as conceptual art is within the art world. It's more niche right?
>>1281657
hello plebo
>>1291643
people who play in those genres have an immense technical knowledge of music and music theory. they aren't retards who dont know how to play instruments
>>1291770
But if you played some of their music for the average person who doesn't know anything about music that isn't on the top 20 chart and what do you think they would say?
>I could do that
>My kid could do that
Doesn't that sound familiar?
>>1291782
But Tracey emin can't draw and Damien hirst can't paint. That is the point being made here.
>>1288839
>There was no other way to render the human form any more accurately.
So? If it ain't broke don't fix it. What is it with Post-modernists and their impulse to ruin good things just because they're old, all in the name of "progress?" It's as if the concept of "progressing" and constantly doing new things trumps all, including whether or not the old thing is better than the new thing (Imagine that!) or if the old thing is simply more healthy for society as a whole. It's a constant pattern with post-modernism. "Progress, even at the cost of all else."
>>1282358
You know Starry Night used to be considered the same way you're considering abstract expressionism, right? Back 100 years ago people thought it was a hot mess of "artists just throwing paint everywhere"
Duchamp started and ended it 100 years ago. Why are artists still beating this dead horse? It's not funny any more.
Pic related
>This kills the art
>>1281430
when is this thread gonna disappear
>>1291831
So you're saying that one day we will look back at this and appreciate it?
>>1291844
Oh so an occasional thread about art is bad? Direct your energies to the far more tedious threads about 'why is Africa shit lol' 'Hitler did nothing wrong' and the classic religious shit flinging threads please
>>1291831
Look at the controversy Christ in the House of His Parents caused.
>>1291884
The controversy to that painting was more due to the unusual and vaguely insulting depiction of Jesus as a young boy, as well as the bizarre dimensions in the paintings and the creepy facial expressions of all involved, especially Jesus.
>>1291864
>So you're saying that one day we will look back at this and appreciate it?
I'm appreciating it right now.
>>1291816
Way to miss his point you absolute retard.
>>1291884
what is john the baptist thinking here
>>1291922
Yet if you show it to people today, most would regard it as a pretty picture.
>>1291961
The criticism had nothing to do with the perception that the painting of Jesus didn't mean anything, or didn't represent anything. You can't equate that painting with two lines on a canvas. It's nonsensical. Yes, the painting had a purpose, yes, it represented something. The criticism came from the insulting depiction of Jesus who looks like a victim of the potato famine, and the extremely weird facial expressions on all the characters, not to mention the god-awful lighting.
Those criticism don't matter when you have a piece of art that is two colored lines sloppily painted on a canvas, you can't make a criticism, it's impossible, all you can do is sputter and stumble in confusion mixed with outrage at the idea that such a thing could be treated with such monumental significance. You can't criticize the lighting or the shades or the depictions of certain things. How the hell are you going to accurately and intellectually criticize lines of color?
Video related.
https://youtu.be/d7ez-gIt08I
>>1281430
>canvas with a throwaway movie quote stenciled on with bad kerning
>$26,485,000
>>1291979
And maybe in 100 years noone will give a shit about lighting or shades or depictions.
>>1292021
They don't give a shit now.
>>1282133
More than that, honestly. Rothkos have been increasing in price pretty quickly over the last few years. He's really experiencing a resurgence.
Add that this particular piece is the start of his color field period, and you're looking at $180m in 2025, imo.
>>1291782
thats because they're ignorant pricks who don't know the skill required for it. plus, if i made some random dude listen to some pierre schaeffer or something he wouldn't say his kid could do that but most likely be dumbfounded
>>1281430
There's probably some money laundering involved.
>>1289505
most early conceptual art was devised specifically to escape the art market and the commodification of art. stuff in the 60s
>>1289492
>If that's all you think there is to representational/figurative art then I'm a bit dismayed.
i'm talking about the artistic response to figurative art not my own knowledge of what figurative art is
>>1290342
>Art has to be thought provoking and must ellicit questions in the mind of the beholder.
citation?
>>1291254
>Painters aren't human photocopiers your fool.
then i wonder why most anti-mods favour the photorealistic oil painting of the 19th century
>>1291507
>Technical knowledge not required
it doesn't matter though. the mechanics can change but the 'art effect' is still the same
>>1291576
damn
>>1291677
because music is largely commercial
>>1291816
they make sculpture my friend
>>1291824
we're talking about modernism not post-modernism
>>1291837
there was a duchamp revival around the 50s after some retrospective iirc. artists adapted his techniques to more relevant and immediate contexts, so you get neo-dada, pop art, nouveau realisme, the independent group, etc. it seems sculpture/painting now has forgotten the social and political implications of this since the global art market and international biennales are what defines the contemporary period, but most of contemporary art is photography which is strangely absent from these threads
>>1293191
imma post some photography then
>>1293479
>>1293487
>>1293490
bragaglia is so fucking good
>>1293495
>>1289011
You sure? I believe I heard somewhere that some of those cans started leaking a while ago.
>>1293502
lissitzky is goat
>>1289510
What am I looking at here?
>>1293557
Compositional techniques
>>1291824
> their impulse to ruin good things
You understand that nobody ruining everything and people still painting pretty realistic illustrations like all of the time? Of course this wasn't everything so someone should develop a new ways to approach an art and new methods of self-expression.
>>1293191
>Anti mods favour 19th century realism
That's just one pedo posting the same boring shit.
>The art effect is the same.
I would argue that with conceptual art the effect is really not the same. There are many ways of appreciating modes of artistic expression. There is visual or aesthetic appreciation e.g. composition, form, shape, balance, color. There is also the intellectual side: symbolism, allusion, metaphor, parody etc.
Correct me with examples if I'm wrong but I feel that conceptual art really only satisfies a few of the second type of appreciation.
>>1293657
> few of the second type of appreciation
Mostly because people doesn't learn to appreciate such things. You can't really blame an art for such problem and there was nothing bad for some art to be fully understood by some minority of people for one or another reason. Artistic language shouldn't be the universal one because than it would miss a more personal themes and subjects.
>>1281430
Does anyone have the screen of anon ranting about his hand carved sculpture being displayed next to a poorly made statue of a guy sucking himself off?
When asked how long it took him to paint the work, Rothko replied, "40 years."
>>1290736
>1922
>modern
>>1296061
just the perfect type of hipster fag that would look at a picture like this to find some "meaning"
>>1281430
It's still better than contemporary and pop art. Literally the worst meme arts are the ones you can find in galleries nowadays. There's still some very impressive stuff being made, but it gets overshadowed by the showy shit and exhibitions.
Art before the 1950s as a whole was pretty gr8, atleast rothkos are pleasant on the eyes in person, it's only when people start attributing some inane nonsensical meaning to these canvases that it really blows art out of the water in a bad way.
Just like /lit/erature people don't have foundations anymore, don't go to Italy to study the masters like they used to, don't study under any great masters or mentors, it's like becoming a chef while microwaving everything.
Art is mostly dead as we used to know it but it still exists in some great forms and through certain people.
>>1296146
>thinking modern means contemporary
>>1296161
Just the perfect kind of elitist that would turn their noses at people who want to find meaning in the world.
>buh-but it's not mine!
Please don't be my strawman. Because that's kind of the point.
>>1293657
what you're referring to is what i called the mechanics. i only half believe what i said about the 'art effect' because i am applying the writing of some lesser-known japanese modernist poet rather than actual art historical lit. but from what i understand of conceptual art, if you are to follow its duchampian roots, it is a deliberate move away from 'optical art' in favour of the intellectual. so criticising art that specifically attacks the idea of visual aesthetics in art really misses the point.
but to add to this with what i think is really just my opinion, is that one of the main reasons for why there was this reaction to aesthetic art is because of the 19th century photorealism and other 19th century art-for-arts-sake like that of the aesthetic movement during this period was ignoring the intellectual side of pre-industrial art. so with the picasso side of modernism you get a 'return to art' that reunites the close study of nature with compositional design that gives us a modern take on what actually made art Art. with duchamp, it's a rejection of that 'one side' which was ignored in favour of the other. either way 19th century art is generally as devoid of substance as modern art but anti-modernists don't really know this
but again this is why i am championing photography because it takes the intellectualism of conceptual art but also applies ideas of composition and aesthetics. not all the time but specifically i'm thinking of deadpan photography, like the dusseldorf school.
>>1287385
>>1296146
This>>1296178
Also, pic related is from 2012. I consider it decent at the very least.
Ron Mueck, the most realistic sculpturer in the history of humanity
>>1297239
first one is fan ho anon
>>1288839
>maybe its meaningless was the point
ah yes where have I heard this before
>>1297220
To be fair, any of the sculptures of the classical era look far more human than his works.
>>1288785
so, art for simpletons?
We've moved past that, to new ways of looking at things
Modern art haters are the dadrockers of art.
>>1292064
They'd have better ROI by just buying bitcoin
>>1281696
>lol I shat in a can art has no meaning I'm so smrt postmodernist retardation
''''''''''''modern'''''''''' art
>>1297978
>lol I shat in a post art has no meaning I'm so smrt internet retardation
Contemporary """"people""""
>>1297978
>>1297992
if someone wants to pay millions of dollars for this, let him pay
what's the problem?
maybe it means something to him?
>>1291837
>Duchamp's fountain.
he was trolling, unfortunately people are too retarded/pretentious to recognize Obvious Trolls.
>>1287385
