Did modernism save art from becoming stale?
pic related, it's Dada art
>>610264
>"save"
Automatic shit thread.
>>610272
Autists need not apply.
Was art ever good?
Classical art is like 9gag. Stale rehashes of old memes. Nothing new, just endless repetition of memes that become less witty everytime you see it.
Modern art is the shitposting needed to revitalize art.
>>610290
How does that make any sense?
>>610290
>hey guys, everyone is wearing clothes, it's so boring and stale
>I have a great idea, let's get naked and cover ourselves with shit instead
>Why are you opposed to something new?
>>610302
Exactly! What is more ebin, wearing clothes or shit?
"Art was a mistake."
- Ötzi
>>610280
Yes
>>610347
Why? I'm legitimately asking for an explanation, not trolling.
>>610344
>Otzi
>posts a picture of a neanderthal
>>610355
Good art is the combination of effort, skill and a good idea. If you can create something on a canvas that can actually convey on idea onto someone else, or make something that people would actually pay you for to have it in their homes, that to me means that you have made something worthwhile. You've made something that, although in a small way, made the world a better place. The older you get, the more you realize that actually making the world a better place is much harder than you imagine it to be
>>610388
Mkay, and writing your name on a urinal doesn't really qualify
>>610264
But what is art?
Art reached its zenith and then died with Van Gogh, his late work - Starry Night, The Sower, his last self-portrait - is the height of the western civilization, equivalent to Also Sprach Zarathustra is the literally peak
>>610410
Starry night is blurry shit
>>610432
>being literally a nigger
>>610394
>it's just putting your name on a urinal
>>610264
Duchamp was known troll.
He did it to make a joke about gallery owners only letting people with connections, people who paid a lot or people who agreed to have sex with them to show their works there. He was one of the people with connections(mediocre, but still) so he put it there and said "EVERYTHING IS ART - IF IT'S IN GALLERY".
What he meant was "I can propose putting my signed shit in gallery and critics and gallery owners will still put it there because of my name alone while masterpieces can be ignored because they're not signed by the right person".
Critics obviously "missed" this point and claimed that Duchamp wanted to say that "EVERYTHING IS ART".
>>610450
That's an awesome picture, anon, thanks
this piece of canvas with some words poorly stenciled on sold for $26,400,000
I am convinced that this kind of low-effort modern art is nothing but a massive money laundering scheme
>>610388
>If you can create something on a canvas that can actually convey on idea onto someone else, or make something that people would actually pay you for to have it in their homes, that to me means that you have made something worthwhile.
this may have been relevant when old style patronage existed, but the value of art is ridiculously inflated nowadays. if you follow the news just a little bit you'd know that warhols go for tens of millions of dollars. not saying the guy was not talented, but little "effort" went into his work
>>610302
>hey guys, everyone is wearing clothes, it's so boring and stale
> Oil paintings should be functional
For the love of God that's a horrible opinion and I hope you don't share it outside of 4chan or you'll be the butt of everyones joke behind your back
>>610608
Fucking this, my artist father still defends it though. Apparently it means something.
Give me pic related any day.
>>610659
If I shoot you and throw you out of a plane, is it art?
>>610663
If you put it on the silver screen, yes.
>>610410
>Also Sprach Zarathustra is the literally peak
>being this much of a pleb
Read more books nigger
>>610681
Yup
>>610608
>I am convinced that this kind of low-effort modern art is nothing but a massive money laundering scheme
You're convinced wrong. Low-effort modern art is popular much more widely than the tiny slice of artists who can sell a work for a million and the tiny slice of patrons who have a million dollars to launder.
The definition of art is subjective
Who's R. Mutt?
>>610264
Art should just become a science. Have the toffs hook us up to MRI scanners and see which shapes cause endorphin's to be released. Inevitably we'll rid ourselves of this modernism debacle.
>>610608
The artist usually never sees that money. Even if an artist is recognized during his life, what usually happens if they get some rich patrons that buy their art and support their lifestyle. The rich person does this to several artists (like an angel investor and start ups). Sometimes the art becomes a cultural artifact, and it is for that reason people covet it and the value appreciates. The artist won't see the same money for a new one. The value isn't the low effort made to make the art, that has been paid for by the patron. The value is that it becomes influential and people want the specific piece as a cultural artifact, not just an artistic expression.
Example, a Van Gogh is coveted because it was made by Van Gogh, who is dead and an art celebrity, not because if you stuck a minor Van Gogh work in an exhibition hall full of impressionist paintings, you would be able to easily identify as it being superior. It is the quality of it being a cultural artifact that is commands a high price.
It's not about the effort. People want a piece of history, an object of importance. No one commissions artists to make new works for these sums of money, at least not so the artist can pocket millions. They might cover millions in the materials costs and supporting the artists' livelihood for years.
>>610388
>Good art is the combination of effort, skill and a good idea
t. Anon
Your post is just opinionated, sentimentalist splatter. I highly doubt you've read any Aesthetic thought to understand why your ideas are considered antiquated. It's a shame that this type of basis for what is good or bad is shared by so many people without the knowledge that they've jumped into the middle of a discourse that's been ongoing for thousands of years.
>>610454
It doesn't matter what his intentions are or if he was a troll. The question you should be asking about DuChamp's piece in the context of art-history is less 'why was it made' and more 'what does it do'. The results and lasting impact on art from the piece are argumentative.
>>610838
How on earth is a canvas with half of a movie quote stenciled on with bad kerning a cultural artifact? I'm not angry with the artist, I'm just absolutely blindsided by the fact that people think his work is worth millions when they could have asked any person without any kind of artistic training whatsoever to just make their own movie quote stenciled canvas for about $20. The only explanation I can come up with is money laundering.
>>610608
as if 90% of ''classical'' art wasn't done for money
This shit is Art? Hahaha, modern art.
If any of you here likes music, please, don't say art is shit, modern art is shit, they think it's all about messages, being edgy and shit, but no, art's main goal has always been to be beautiful, artists have always tried to reproduce the world's beauty, the nature, the human body, but also to tell a story, we feel something listening or looking, but it doesn't mean that that's art's objective.
>>610654
the water in this painting reminded me of this
>>610980
>>610930
I'm not shitting on all modern art, I'm shitting on this piece in particular because it's a movie reference in stenciled black text on a white canvas. It required no technical skill and no originality, and I fail to see how anyone could think it was worth a significant amount of money, much less 26 million dollars.
>>610889
t. Unemployed liberal and black lices matter supporter
There is no "saving" art.
Art is essentially an individual notion specific to each person.
>>610608
>modern
the fact that it's not on a wall and full of holes should clue you in that it is not modern
>>610631
the individual 'works' are not really the point. the effort is expended in the careful cultivation of a 'celebrity' and the countless other things the man did that can't actually be sold
>>610912
capitalism confirmed for a giant money laundering scheme
>>611010
Nice try, but i'm voting trump and don't think that ANY lice matter.
>>611058
shit
it's like
capitalism is only designed to make money or something
the advent of photography as an artform has rendered naturalism in other art unnecessary. most naturalist art existed in its time in order to capture the unseeable by the viewer, or simply to demonstrate beauty. in an effort to produce the most authentic experience, art had to be as realistic or "true to life" as possible.
other, better means to capture the same feelings and images have arisen. as a result visual art had to reconstruct itself, allowing us to enter the modern and postmodern eras (this development starting of course with surrealism). this shift seems to have gone by unnoticed by part of the population, who still believes that in order for an art piece to be worthwhile it must still abide by the outdated notion that art exists on a quantifiable scale of "good" or "bad," relative to how effectively it reproduces the physical world. not only does art no longer serve this particular reproductive function, the idea of a specified final cause for art as a whole has gone completely out the window.
Modern art is garbage, you might not think so but that just means your opinion is also garbage.
>>610410
You are the equivalent to a Michael Bay fan regarding art and literature.
>>610278
Good. I want nothing to do with regressive art.
>>610264
Not all modern art is gross, boring, unaesthetic, improficient, or lazy. That is to say, traditions in modern art vary a hell of a lot in matter and form. Only bits of it liken themselves to ebin equivocation and anti-art.
>>610912
>I'm just absolutely blindsided by the fact that people think his work is worth millions when they could have asked any person without any kind of artistic training whatsoever to just make their own movie quote stenciled canvas for about $20.
As the old line goes, they could have but they didn't.
>The only explanation I can come up with is money laundering.
Have you ever thought maybe some people actually like this type of art?
>>610889
If a completely uniformed caveman can't be thrown in to the modern art world and make a reasonable contribution then the art world isn't filled with art. It's filled with stuffy smugness and stupid memes signifying nothing.
The last century has been a travesty for art. As has every century. But there appears no escape for this black hole we are in right now, just an endless dirge of 'expression' and clique stupidity.
>>611148
>As the old line goes, they could have but they didn't.
>Have you ever thought maybe some people actually like this type of art?
Yes, but if they liked the aesthetics of it they could literally just go to Home Depot and buy the materials to make a copy for themselves for less than $100. It's like something you'd find on etsy or pinterest, not in an art gallery.
>>610912
>How on earth is a canvas with half of a movie quote stenciled on with bad kerning a cultural artifact?
Because someone influential, at one point in time, said they liked it and hey thought the series had merit behind it and was innovative. This usually happens after the series has been commissioned or finished. It's not an endless million dollar printing press. The actual object has relevance because of it's historical novelty and status as an artifact of a certain era, and created by a certain person.
> I'm just absolutely blindsided by the fact that people think his work is worth millions when they could have asked any person without any kind of artistic training whatsoever to just make their own movie quote stenciled canvas for about $20.
A replica has absolutely zero value as an artifact. Even if the original artist did reproductions, they would not have much value. Picasso linocuts are affordable. You could buy a Picasso linocut for a few hundred dollars.
A reproduction Nazi uniform is not worth the same as a historical artifact Nazi uniform, which is not worth the same as Hitler's personal Nazi uniform. Even though the reproduction is probably better is every technical and objective way.
Also consider the fact, no one asked him to do it. He came up with the idea. If you came up with the idea, and were able to articulate why it was deep and meaningful, and present it in an impactful way, you too could be an artist.
>>610264
But that's not modernism.
>>611297
>If you came up with the idea, and were able to articulate why it was deep and meaningful, and present it in an impactful way, you too could be an artist.
http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/paintings/christopher-wool-apocalypse-now-5739095-details.aspx#features-audio
I just listened to the accompanying audio. I still have no idea how or why this work resonates with people, the guy is just praising the typography and saying that it was made following an 80s stock market crash that I'd never even heard of. I see neither innovation nor artistic merit, I don't see how "Wool brings together figures and the disfigured, drawing and painting, spontaneous impulses and well thought-out ideas," in a way that's emotionally or rhetorically meaningful.
like I said before, to me it just looks like a shitty pinterest project
>>610889
>>610280
>>610355
Are you seriously trying to say that art isn't good?
>>611458
Personally, if someone has to explain their art for me to "get it", it's not good art. The art should be able to stand on its own.
This post is art
you cannot reply to this post with an argument against this claim without looking like a fucking idiot
>>610264
In what way is this art good? What idea, message, or commentary does it express? How effectively does it convey said meaning to the audience?
>>611560
That art in particular represents the new art movements against traditionalism, the use of a urinal is to say "I piss on art school who tell me what is and isn't art"
It's fucking art you plebeian
>>611475
Yes art isn't good, they were made by men of their times, trying to enjoy the art the way they want you to is cultural appropriation.
It's cultural imperialism
>>610930
>as if 90% of ''classical'' art wasn't done for money
Are you counting patronage and commissions as "money"? Because if so then I'm going to have to disagree with you.
>>611539
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination
there was no imagination or creativity put into your post, as someone already did the "this post is art" bullshit last year
so no, it's not art
>>611526
Yep.
You know how /co/ complains about how WORDSWORDSWORDS comics are failures as visual works of art? Most modern art is like that except without even the words.
>>611569
You sound extremely pseudo-intellectual. The piece conveys no valuable meaning. "Fuck traditional art" is not a valuable meaning. It's immature.
>>611458
I'm not saying you have to agree. There were people who wanted Goering's uniform burned last year, and others who were willing to pay good money to own it. Completely opposite values of the item, but values placed because it's considered an artifact, and some people have placed value on it that exceeds it's material value.
In the end, it's just some old fabric sewn into clothes to fit a fat person soaked with sweat.
>>611526
>>611623
You need to be at least artistically literate to appreciate some shit. The art is not for your pleb masses, you have media and pop art. The art is for a niche of pretentious people who have time to pat themselves on the back for appreciating deeper meanings and deep enough pockets to buy what they want.
It's like the common trope of a pleb asking "what has philosophy ever done?" You need to be philosophically literate to understand meaning of some philosophers, the work doesn't just stand on it's own.
>>611539
It might be art, but it's really shitty art no one would pay a cent for. You've created something that superficially represents the art you resent, yet failed in creating something people place value in, and thus failed in creating worthy art. The price of art is determined by perceived value, not you declaring something is art. Art isn't valuable because it's art, it's valuable because people value it.
>>611679
>>611842
Now I'm not normally an advocate for ad populis logical fallacies but you must understand you are a vocal minority in today's art community who would say the urinal isn't art, and who is to say immature is bad? Everything is relative, people valued this
http://recode.net/2014/08/02/this-post-is-art-framed-4chan-post-sells-for-90900-on-ebay/
And they valued the urinal, who are you to say they aren't art?
>>611834
>You need to be at least artistically literate to appreciate some shit.
I understand that, but when someone takes a literal shit on a piece of paper, don't expect me to infer that "it represents the Millenial zeitgeist towards establishment values" or some bullshit like that. Such a statement could be made much more eloquently by someone with actual talent.
>>611854
Who cares if it's art or not, it's shitty art.
>>611877
Now you may be moving the goalposts here but I can very much agree with you anon
>>611854
It didn't actually sell though. Some memesters just placed garbage bids they had no intention of paying for. But if you think you can make $90k with your post, go right ahead.
>And they valued the urinal, who are you to say they aren't art?
You're the one saying that. Stop projecting. The worst art collectors are speculators. They buy and sell art like stocks, not on their inherent value or what they can appreciate, but based on how they expect other people to value it. Then you have more speculators and speculate on speculation, and it becomes a bubble backed by a urinal, with speculators buying and passing it off to the next speculator until some speculator ends up with the bill for a urinal no one wants.
I don't really care what other people think is art. You ask why art sells for obscene prices when anyone could do it. It's not because it's a generic substitutable commodity urinal. It's because it's the special unique urinal that people want.
>>611863
>I understand that, but when someone takes a literal shit on a piece of paper, don't expect me to infer that "it represents the Millenial zeitgeist towards establishment values" or some bullshit like that. Such a statement could be made much more eloquently by someone with actual talent.
The cognitive dissonance is the art.
At one time fecal art was really edgy with a lot of shock value. That could be exploited with a few words to cause a person to think about it, generating value. Fecal art has been played out though.
You do realize art doesn't magically gain value because it exists. It has value because someone finds value in it, even if it isn't you. Often this is a deeper meaning or impression that goes over your head, but not someone else's, or it's an artifact of importance because of who made it. Someone might actually pay for the fecal matter of a celebrity.
>>611891
Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.
>>611922
Value is subjective.
>>610344
>tfw never be like the old masters
>>611891
>It has value because someone finds value in it
That goes back to what I initially said. If someone has to explain it, then it doesn't have any intrinsic value to you, just a forced value that you assign to it retroactively so you can feel good about yourself. Who would buy a pile of shit from a garage sale? Who would even recognize it as "art"? No one.
>Someone might actually pay for the fecal matter of a celebrity.
ONLY if they knew it was the celebrity's poop. In that case, they're not valuing the poop, they're valuing the celebrity.
>>611931
>That goes back to what I initially said. If someone has to explain it, then it doesn't have any intrinsic value to you, just a forced value that you assign to it retroactively so you can feel good about yourself.
You're asking why you don't value it. Have you considered the owner values it without being told? Have you considered a museum that charges a few dollars it explaining art so they can value it? The value only has to exist for the owner.
>Who would buy a pile of shit from a garage sale? Who would even recognize it as "art"? No one.
Except your issue is clearly that the answer is enough rich people to drive up prices.
>ONLY if they knew it was the celebrity's poop. In that case, they're not valuing the poop, they're valuing the celebrity.
Yes, and that's what I've been trying to get into your head as artifact value. A reproduction could leave the same artistic impact, but it can't replicate the value or impact of being an artifact.
You're basically mad you can't appreciate art that rich people appreciate.
>>611854
I didn't say it wasn't art. I said it's valueless art.
>>611931
> If someone has to explain it, then it doesn't have any intrinsic value to you, just a forced value that you assign to it retroactively so you can feel good about yourself.
The bible has no intrinsic value because it really doesn't make sense unless a theologian explains it to you. What you're basically saying is you set a higher bar for art than any other form of expression. And not only that, it has to pass your personal subjective tests of value, not the person who is buying it, for it to be objectively good.
>>611946
In the context of art, what can we learn with a piece of fecal matter? there's no value in it. You learn nothing from it. There's no technique. Just some arbitrary price someone put on it but when you look closer all they have is a piece of shit.
>>611959
Thank you for projecting your personal values on the rest of humanity. Clearly your personal subjective filters apply as objective truth. You do realize prior to your desensitization from 2 girls 1 cup, scatological expression had quite a shock value to it. Art does not necessarily make a good learning tool, or have technique, or even a profound deep philosophical meaning (although your example caption would imply you believe so).
Moreover, you're doing your best at making a hypothetical scenario where the shit in question has absolutely no interesting features of value, yet is highly priced.
This isn't how art works. You or another anon's
>This post is art
post is worth exactly nothing because it has no merit and no one is willing to pay for it. It is the hypothetical shit you describe, and for that reason, is literally worthless. Hypothetical shit which has value, by definition has a characteristic which someone (not you) values.
>>611965
>so you're saying 2deep4u. ok
Saying it's something that you don't appreciate and want to call shit because you can not comprehend why someone else would value it. It could be extremely shallow. The problem is you're dealing in pure hypotheticals which means the goalposts are constantly moving.
>the bible is not art.
It is not art. The point is you have created an arbitrary standard and definition for art, that is not supported. Your definition of art is something you would be able to appreciate, given your own person sense of aesthetics, literacy, knowledge, and value. If it does not meet these subjective criteria, it is objectively not art.
Art does not have to stand alone. Satirical and other forms of social commentary art do not exist in a vacuum. You have to be literate for typography to mean something. You have to recognize shit as shit for you to assign the idea of shit to it, rather than a roughly shaped brown wet semi-solid blob of material with a distinct odor.
You are absolutely entitled to think a piece of art is shit and you wouldn't pay for the piece of shit. I'm sure there are terrorists that think the statue of Zeus is pagan idolatry and a symbol of Western cultural oppression and think it's worthless and better off being destroyed as a sacrifice to YHWH. No one is forcing you to pay for a piece of shit. That shit is being paid for by someone else. You are literally mad because someone values something you place no value in.
>>612000
Not that guy but It seems to me you value more some bum's interpretation than the art itself.
>>610264
It did actually. It's so shit and "artistic values" are debated so much that there's not a moment of boredom anymore in art.
>>612010
>Not that guy but It seems to me you value more some bum's interpretation
Literally a multi-millionaire "bum" in this hypothetical example.
>than the art itself.
And I place no value in his interpretation, unless you asks me to consider the piece in the way he considers it, and if I entertain that thought.
What I am saying is the price is as such because he places value in it, even if you or I don't.
How much value to you place in the Koran? Some people think it's a piece of shit, some people think it's the word of god. That value assessment is completely subjective is the point.
>>612018
unless he asks me*
>>612000
>you can not comprehend why someone else would value it
you are projecting. And you're also wrong. I already mentioned that people would not buy something mundane or disgusting unless they knew it came from a person or thing that they already valued. The value is not coming from the object itself, but from the supposed source.
>Your definition of art is something you would be able to appreciate, given your own person sense of aesthetics, literacy, knowledge, and value. If it does not meet these subjective criteria, it is objectively not art.
More projection.
>Art does not have to stand alone. Satirical and other forms of social commentary art do not exist in a vacuum. You have to be literate for typography to mean something. You have to recognize shit as shit for you to assign the idea of shit to it, rather than a roughly shaped brown wet semi-solid blob of material with a distinct odor.
You accuse me of shifting goalposts while you do so yourself. Amazing. Typography is art now?
>I'm sure there are terrorists that think the statue of Zeus is pagan idolatry and a symbol of Western cultural oppression and think it's worthless and better off being destroyed as a sacrifice to YHWH
Missing the entire point. A statue to Satan is still art. It is an intentional creative work towards an end. Anyone, from any culture can see the statue and KNOW that it is art, that it is purposefully created to induce emotions.
> You are literally mad because someone values something you place no value in.
you seem to be the angry one here, bud
>>612018
Even if you don't put any religious value in the Koran(I don't), we can still learn many things from it.
>>612038
>you are projecting. And you're also wrong. I already mentioned that people would not buy something mundane or disgusting unless they knew it came from a person or thing that they already valued. The value is not coming from the object itself, but from the supposed source.
First of all, artifact value is my primary argument why someone would want the original rather than a reproduction. You're projecting that I'm arguing against that. I brought it up. Second of all, if a piece of art is valuable, it means someone values it. If no one appreciates a piece of art like
>This post is art.
it is not valuable. You are trying to created a paradoxical hypothetical example of a valuable piece of art that no one values.
>More projection.
No, it's really what you're saying. You're acting as if your subjective opinion is objectively correct for everyone.
>You accuse me of shifting goalposts while you do so yourself.
That's because you are trying to push a retarded hypothetical paradox.
>Typography is art now?
Did I say that? However yes, it can be used as a element in art.
>Missing the entire point. A statue to Satan is still art. It is an intentional creative work towards an end. Anyone, from any culture can see the statue and KNOW that it is art, that it is purposefully created to induce emotions.
So is a piece of shit on a pedestal. The fact that someone hit on a pedestal shows clear intention of trying to do something that just poo in a loo.
If someone shits on the steps of capitol hill to express their disgust as protest and evoke a response of disgust directed at government
>it is purposefully created to induce emotions.
>It is an intentional creative work towards an end
According to you it's art. According to me, I might not consider that art, but I respect your appreciation for performance scat art.
>you seem to be the angry one here, bud
It's really hard to get it through your head that subjective value is not objective.
>>612038
On second thought, contrary to what I said here, typography may well be art, BUT you don't have to be literate to appreciate. Just ask anyone who's gotten Japanese symbol tattoos without knowing what they mean, just because they're aesthetically pleasing.
>>612062
>we can still learn many things from it.
Being able to learn from things is not a criteria of art. That's your own subjective value that you place on art that you appreciate. You are free to do so, but it's not an objective truth. There are also literally people who think there is nothing of value that came from the Koran, and thems devil words.
>>612068
>BUT you don't have to be literate to appreciate.
The visual form no. But someone could argue it's just scribbling on paper, akin to shit on paper. If it's a poem, you might be appreciating the visual form, but none of the meaning.
> Just ask anyone who's gotten Japanese symbol tattoos without knowing what they mean, just because they're aesthetically pleasing.
>watashihabakagaijindesu.jpg
there is modern art that is good just like there was art through history that sucked ass but nobody remembers it cause it sucked. "wrong generation" hahaha
>>612090
>snail meme art
>>612067
>So is a piece of shit on a pedestal. The fact that someone hit on a pedestal shows clear intention of trying to do something that just poo in a loo.
Yes, that is art. Because the act of putting it on the pedestal creates a statement. That still falls in line with my original statement about having to be told that something is art. 500 years after the event, historians would be pontificating on the meaning of the shit on the pedestal, meanwhile if the shit wasn't on the pedestal, it would be seen as some old trash, on the same level as manure.
>>612074
I was talking about information that you could study like the language, culture, laws, etc..
I think everyone likes some "lesser" form of art that evokes personal emotions, what I don't like about modern art is that they try to make it look like it's more deep than it is. But then you'll say that it's not deep to me but it's deep to them. Everything is subject right? That's why I think if we want to put some "objective" value to art, the only thing we can do is talk about skill. And in that department modern art is absolute garbage and personally I don't feel anything looking at them.
>>612102
You do have a point, however, about context. The poop being on capitol hill during a certain event adds a layer of meaning to the art
>>612102
>>612111
No one is buying a piece of shit on toilet paper.
The hypothetical valuable shit on paper would most likely be presented at a gallery or a museum. Therefore it is the act of displaying it as art, that makes it art, or at least performance art. The shit on paper in a gallery is simply the artifact of the action of displaying a piece of shit.
>That still falls in line with my original statement about having to be told that something is art.
That's your own person criteria for art. It's hardly an objective truth.
>500 years after the event, historians would be pontificating on the meaning of the shit on the pedestal
Which makes it a culturally significant artifact.
>meanwhile if the shit wasn't on the pedestal
If the paint were still in the bottle
>it would be seen as some old trash, on the same level as manure.
Yes, that's the point of most artists. They try to do something transformative. They take a media with little inherent meaning and try to create something whose value is greater than the sum of its parts.
>I don't like about modern art is that they try to make it look like it's more deep than it is.
The artist's intentions could actually be relatively shallow. Often times, the curator's explanation is about the context in which a simple expression seems radical. This is really difficult because again, we're dealing in hypotheticals.
>But then you'll say that it's not deep to me but it's deep to them.
Has value. Deepness argument comes from the projection that the explanations or titles attempt to be deep (on the other hand, they could be completely satirical, but that would go over your head). And it really only needs to hold value with people that can affect the value.
>That's why I think if we want to put some "objective" value to art, the only thing we can do is talk about skill.
The skill is conceptual formation, not technical execution. Most plebs upon first seeing a Picasso would mock the technical execution.
>>612147
cont.
What's interesting about cubism is often the conceptual ideas of how to break something down. It's not the technical aspect, as much as the thought process creating an intriguing image. You're buying an artifact of someone's imagination and inspiration.
>And in that department modern art is absolute garbage and personally I don't feel anything looking at them.
No one is forcing you to look at or buy it. That doesn't mean they objectively hold no value and other people don't appreciate them. They just don't do anything for you. Emphasis on you.
>>610410
>dressing up personal opinions as objective fact
>dressing up this personal opinion as objective fact
s
>>610410
>Art reached its zenith with Van Gogh
>squiggly blurry art is the zenith
>>612147
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
>>610264
I'm not sure I agree, I think modernism was really more an inevitability with the development and improvement of photography
I'm a big fan of parody art
>>610347
I find this disguisting. I study Art History and like Monet most of time, but some of them I find really shitty.
Also not related to that, neo-classicism - which most of those "modern art is shit" fags love is one of the worst things to happen to art.
>>610264
Anyone who actually LIKES this and thinks its art is either pseudo-intellectual or has severe mental problems. No fucking exceptions.
No, modernism didn't save art, modernism started effectively destroying the meaning and value of art, a feat no one could do for fucking thousands of years
>>610608
Do looking at it make you feel something?
Then it's art.
>>615243
>2016
>getting mad at Dadaism
Chill senpai
>>615296
Is 4chan art?
>>610889
>your ideas are considered antiquated
>IT IS 2016
>>615339
Yes. It's just art only 4chan gold pass users would pay for.
>>615243
ne1 who dont LIKE this is cripplingly autistic XDDD
I can be "ebin" too.
>>610264
art came to a conceptual dead end, people like duchamp jumpstarted it so now we can do figurative again and call it modern
lots of other shit occured along the line like arte povera and surrealism and hiperrealism and absurdis and chaos magic etc etc and then there was that whole postmodernist puking-in-ech-others-mouth but thatk the gods thats behind us
I do think the world is better off for modern art existing, I just wish we'd move on from conceptual art to more technical art again.
>at least fives instances itt of people misusing "modern" for "post-modern", something you learned about in high school
>nobody ever points it out
BOY I AM LOVING THIS "HISTORY" BOARD
>>610264
No, it ruined it completely. Art is no longer art, art now is anything the "artist" wants it to be.
