![Charles%20Thomson%20-%20Sir%20Nicholas%20Serota%20Makes%20an%20Acquisitions%20Decision[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/eVnzI3S.jpg "Charles%20Thomson%20-%20Sir%20Nicholas%20Serota%20Makes%20an%20Acquisitions%20Decision[1].jpg")
Hopefully the painting I chose for the OP will be controversial enough to engender discussion, but not enough that links to spittle-inflected youtube autists get spammed for the entire thread.
modern art is fine. fags who don't like just don't understand it.
>>958865
How does one go about understanding modern art?
>>958891
Well, you don't really, not as a monolithic whole anyway; other than to say that it is an era extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s characterised by an experimental and occasionally iconoclastic bent. It encompasses a huge range of styles and movements.
>>958935
I meant, how do I acquire the tools to understand modern art with? What do you suggest?
>>958865
Nope
It's garbage with no merit whatsoever and you should be shot
>>958891
You don't, the whole "understanding modern art" thingy is a meme
>>958940
when you say 'Modern Art' most people are referring to abstract art. Art has evolved to be more expressive. For example you can see in a work by picasso an image of the world around him through an abstract eye so you can see different meanings and understanding. Look at an abstract work and think about how it makes you feel, what thoughts does it stir in you?
>>958941
>Nope It's garbage with no merit whatsoever and you should be shot
Calling it garbage because you don't understand it only serves to show how much of an idiot YOU are.
>>958955
It's garbage
Worth less than my morning shit
>>958952
But then isn't the whole "you don't understand modern art" argument flawed? If a piece of art has no "absolute" meaning or can't be interpreted objectively then every interpretation is fine and anyone can say whatever they want and still be correct, so saying that modern art is trash and completely meaningless isn't a simplistic rant from a profane any longer
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKFZOIv5sS0
>this is considered modern art
>mfw reading the comments
>>958974
>this is considered modern art
By whom?
>>958981
Ask the "artist"
>>958865
Modern art is composed by few and far between good works hidden in a whole universe of utter trash, that stay perennially hidden because art critique is dead and the average academic couldn't distinguish a real piece fro a joke 9/10.
I bet 99/100 of people who don't understand it would if they were presented with non trash.
>>959000
Dude you just don't understand
>>958856
>>959009
It's hard to understand something no one can explain.
>>958856
Modern art is the pursuit of beauty/emotion through abstract means, it usually fails. Painting large landscapes of pictures of the divines etc is no longer hard (sort of) or rare, so they try and capture the same feelings found in old paintings such as awe, beauty, fear etc in something more abstract such as a pile of bricks or whatever. It's an interesting study of emotion, but it usually ends up coming across pretentious and alienates normal people from the art world which sucks
I mean, it's fine that you don't like it. But if you go around infuriated that art styles beyond absolute realism exist, you're some kind of autist running around scream STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE.
I mean that literally, being physically angry or upset at things that aren't literal is textbook grade A autism.
>>959013
that's why modern art is patrician. things everyone can enjoy are for plebs.
>>959028
>But if you go around infuriated that art styles beyond absolute realism exist, you're some kind of autist
There are a lot of more abstract art styles I like, but when I see contemporary art I often can't help but thinking that the piece I'm looking at is just something that's considered valuable only because someone said so and not because it's some kind of powerful representation of something or technically well executed
>>959051
Well clearly some people think it's valuable. You haven't really progressed beyond "Stop liking what I don't like"
>>959051
You are correct. There are certainly some that I can appreciate and understand. But many are just WTF. If any, the real 'art' in contemporary art comes from coming up with some bullshit meaning for a pile of ramdom crap or a line. I bet I can even just go to the Tate Modern, hang up an empty canvas and it would be seen as an artwork
>>959058
>call myself an artist
>eat extra spicy burritos
>get explosive diarrhea
>call it "contemporary art"
>b-but it's just a diarrhea !
>no anon, you just don't understand
>>959053
>Well clearly some people think it's valuable
So it's literally "somebody said so"? Why
is their opinion worth more than mine?
>You haven't really progressed beyond "Stop liking what I don't like"
That's not true at all. I simply said that I don't understand why it's considered fine art and would greatly appreciate an explanation as to why it is, if you care to give one
>>959058
You can literally do just that
>>959070
>That's not true at all.
>I simply said that I don't understand why it's considered fine art
So you 're not saying "Stop liking what I don't like", but rather "I don't understand why you like what I don't like".
I get it, you think it's dumb you think that the symbolism is a sham and the artist is basically pulling a fast one on everyone who likes it. That's fine, you have that opinion man, go on live your life and ignore art you don't like.
>>959081
So you're not going to give me any explanation? Do you always condescendingly dismiss people who disagree with you?
>>959076
Holy shit. I actually saw a mirror there once
>>959081
Can this post be considered art ?
>>959063
I bet we can fuck each other and the cum stain on the bed would be 'artistic'
>>959083
I don't owe you an explanation and neither does anyone else.
Look, you probably like a bunch of weird shit that other people would find repulsive and aren't able to comprehend the appeal. You don't owe them an explanation about why you're so into Moe anime or whatever fucking degeneracy you're into, and they don't owe you one about why they think getting naked in the town square and shitting paintballs onto the pavement.
Other people will like things you don't like, you just have to live with that fact.
>>959053
>Well clearly some people think it's valuable.
Yeah, because the sheer incomprehensibility of the pieces means that they can be sold easy. I have clients who routinely buy & stash shit from exordients exhibitions to resell them a few years later. They literally ask the teachers "which of your students markets himself better" to decide who to support.
Modern art is basically an IRL bitcoin.
>>959089
A three year old doodling on a napkin is art, it's shit art that won't find any wider appreciation, but it's art none the less.
>>959053
>You haven't really progressed beyond "Stop liking what I don't like"
But literally all you're doing is saying "stop disliking what I like". You offer no sort of argument why modern works have real merit. Why should something be considered art just because you like it?
I like my childhood paintings, does it make them art too?
>>959098
>Art is a business
Yeah, so? Painters have fucking bills to pay same as any movie studio or game dev house. If people want to spend money on their crude statue of a man fucking himself off, bully to the fucking artist. Getting angry at that just seems like jealousy.
>>959104
>it's art none the less
Then art as a term has no meaning beyond being a synonym of expression.
>>959096
I understand people may not like the same things I like, but I can surely tell them why I personally like them. I also have no problem with people liking things I don't like but I do have a problem with people telling me I don't understand something and then refusing to explain it to me.
Why don't you want to give me an explanation? I think I asked politely enough and I don't think you have more important things to do considering you're here right now
>>959113
I'm not against the sale of art, I'm just telling you that people don't trade for it because of its beauty or meaning, it's just an easy way to get untaxable and easy to hide money.
>>959091
Already done, sort of.
>>959108
They can be "art" but there must be standards to prevent bad art from being glorified such as an empty canvas or some lazily put together swosh of paint
>>959108
Art is literally any creative expression. Imposing any stricter definitions basically amounts to "Art is any creative expression that I personally approve of".
>You offer no sort of argument why modern works have real merit
What Merit does the Mona Lisa have? It's oil an Canvas, its merit comes from the fact that people like it, the emotional response it elicits. Meaningless abstract shit that draws a crowd who giggle in confusion
>>959118
Ssshh....anon, [spoiler]you just don't understand[/spoiler]
>>959128
;_;
>>959127
By what you're saying, the concept of "understading" art seems retarded. It's just subjective expression then.
>>959116
Basically, yes.
You're arguing that somewhere between a three year old's finger painting and the Mona Lisa there lies a threshold that spits "Not art" From "art". And you're setting that threshold at "Things that I, personally find acceptable".
Or "Stop liking what I don't like"
>>959128
Oh fuck this gay place, why can't we get spoiler tag just like the other boards
>>959091
It has been done already.
>>959137
I could accept this actually, but people screaming at me "stop disliking what I like" and calling me a moron who doesn't understand it make me mad.
I mean, your argument works for me, but it's directly against modern academia.
>>959137
I think that people usually use "art" as a synonym for "good art". Why should the inexpressive and lazy work of an art college student be considered on par with a Monet?
>>959139
Because the board is supposed to be about actual discussion and not memes Anon.
>>959151
Why not both ? This whole thread is a meme
>>959148
Because muh deep symbolism. You just don
't get it. Lol weed dude, my period stains on a sheet of paper is art.
>>959154
I agree with you really, memeposting is cool.
>>959148
>Why should the inexpressive and lazy work of an art college student be considered on par with a Monet?
That's just a strawman argument, no one is going to tear down the Louvre and replace with "the museum of Freshmen college art projects", the greats aren't going anywhere.
![6989154-3x2-700x467[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/V2wgPYy.jpg "6989154-3x2-700x467[1].jpg")
Was on holiday recently and went to a major Gilbert and George retrospective, very glad I did.
Absolutely loved it. On the one hand, they have often been called reactionary, they have a politically conservative bent, on the other they are a couple of dirty old poofs, that still manage to maintain an air of respectable public school chaste homosexuality, despite Gilbert being a migrant and both being working class. There are a lot of seemingly conflicting dualities in themselves and their work which I find pretty fascinating. Their liberal conservative bent I think also gives weight to their criticism of the governance of the British state, which I think might otherwise come off as a bit hackneyed.
The only real crtiticism I have of their art is that I think that their early digital photomontage is worse than their analogue, though I think they have matured in their use of the newer form now.
>>959148
>Why should the inexpressive and lazy work of an art college student be considered on par with a Monet?
They're not considered on par, though, are they? Not a lot of lazy inexpressive college students are drawing millions of people to the Louvre.
>>959163
If you say that there's no divide between the Mona Lisa and kids' finger painting then mine is not a strawman at all. Aren't you saying that every form of expression is art? If so, we either distinguish between good and bad art or we put everything on the same level and give every single piece of art the same dignity and value
>>959148
>I think that people usually use "art" as a synonym for "good art"
Well that's just dumb,Twilight and War and Peace are both "Novels", El Topo and Transformers 4 are both "Movies" the existence of one does not affect the other.
>>959146
You were so rough. I can't even sit down properly
>>959183
>we either distinguish between good and bad art or we put everything on the same level and give every single piece of art the same dignity and value
People have done this though. As per their own personal taste they have decided what constitutes good and bad art by putting (what they consider to be) good art on display in prestigious museums like the Louvre and paying millions of dollars for (what they consider to be) good art. You may disagree with their rationale, but, well you know "Stop liking what I don't like".
>>959198
It was my privilege.
>>959202
If it's all subjective what's the point of saying someone doesn't understand modern art? If what's needed to make a piece of art good is somebody liking it then somebody disliking it makes it bad.
Also, I have no problem with people having a different taste from me, but I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why it's good art and nobody has defined the rationale behind it either
>>959221
>what's the point of saying someone doesn't understand modern art
Literally "stop disliking what I like".
>>959228
I'm sadly starting to believe so
Is this art, and if so, how good?
>>959234
Kek actually if it was just that it would be perfectly fine with me, as long as they acknowledge it.
The problem is that they don't. The art world is a fucking religion nowadays, and the (money influenced) tastes of some critics are taken as word of god that everyone is required to listen to or be ostracized.
>>959221
>>959228
>someone doesn't understand modern art?
You shouldn't take this comment personally, if it's intoned as an insult the person saying it is either a moron who doesn't like that you don't like what he likes or is making fun you.
If I make a comedy routine, I tell a joke and you don't laugh, that doesn't make you dumb for "not getting it", it just means that you didn't find me funny, the guy at the other table laughed. Why did he find it funny but you didn't? Can he put this into words? Would those two people get in a big argument over whether the joke was funny or not?
If half the people in the room laugh and the other half don't, does that make it "not comedy"?
>>959251
>The art world is a fucking religion nowadays, and the (money influenced) tastes of some critics are taken as word of god that everyone is required to listen to or be ostracized.
So you don't like what they like and they don't like that you don't like what they like?
Well isn't that lovely, you're made for each other.
>>959258
So your explanation is just that you can't explain it? Because I can explain why I find something funny, maybe not in the finest details but I surely know why to a certain degree.
>If half the people in the room laugh and the other half don't, does that make it "not comedy"?
It makes it average/mediocre comedy I guess
Again, if it can't be explained what is there to understand? Because, I'll say it again, I can explain why I like something and why I think something is valuable or good
![$_1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4n5Jksb.jpg "$_1[1].jpg")
>>959169
>>959264
We're not actually, because I don't pretend to force my tastes upon others and I don't call them stupid for having different tastes.
>>959258
>if it's intoned as an insult the person saying it is either a moron who doesn't like that you don't like what he likes
Yes see this is my point. You've just described every level of art academia. I have the disgrace (well relatively, they make me mad dosh) of having to deal with art galleries a lot, I could count the people who aren't like this with one hand. And they're all artists, the critics are the worst offenders.
I'm not saying that modern art is all shit, I'm just saying that if you want to convince me something has more than subjective value you're gonna present some valid arguments, not "you just don't understand it".
>>958952
You can't even say what modern art is but you say people don't understand it?
>>959433
The 4th post is literally a definition of modern art f a m
>>959436
Do you mean the 3rd or 5th? Because the 4th post is a question. Both definition offered in 3 and 5 are highly contestable and are being debated in this thread.
>>959443
>...it is an era extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s characterised by an experimental and occasionally iconoclastic bent. It encompasses a huge range of styles and movements
![exh_16[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/FlttiDh.jpg "exh_16[1].jpg")
regan tamanui
there's one of his older works hidden away at uni, pretty average street stencil work
when I saw he started the melbourne stuckists I thought "that makes perfect sense, a two bit political stencil artist blames the establishment for his lack of success" nonetheless, following up on him his more recent work has matured a lot, he bridges the gallery/street divide in an interesting way imo
>>958865
>Marxism is fine. Fags who criticize it just don't understand it.
This is modern art too
>>958856
Tracy Emin is a cáncer to the art world. Her and Damien Hirst as I understand has mostly assistants do his shit. The art's not impressive and way too pretentious. Some Contemporary art is ok, even awesome, but many at least which museums seem to love to showcase are crap. I find better work in open studios or small galleries.
Watch "why beauty matters (2009)"
It explains pretty well how the feces being called "art" and the people who admire/create said feces (like OP) are mentally ill + defective degenerates who have no understanding of the concepts of artistic merit and beauty whatsoever
>>962174
Would you be able to summarise the argument yourself?
>>959286
>We're not actually, because I don't pretend to force my tastes upon others and I don't call them stupid for having different tastes.
You know, given all the ravings about the degeneracy of modern art in this thread, this comment looks pretty ridiculous
>>958865
>"I enjoy the fact that a tool which could once shape public culture and society at large has been chained within the dungeons of my ivory tower, where I and my like-minded brethren may form in an oval (as circles are for plebeians) to stimulate our neighbors genitalia to coat the inside with 'ivory' as well. I pay no mind to the fact during the process of pretending to appreciate the value of a highly contextual work, what I am supposedly admiring has little to no aesthetic merit, and due to this willingly obtuse method of appreciation, the only benefactors will be a millionaire who shall purchase the piece to put in a warehouse as a symbol of his wealth, as well as the ability to continue our facade of intellectual superiority."
>>958974
No wonder they got raped.
Modern art is the biggest joke of all time and the only people who are in on it are the ones making money, which are criminals. Not the metaphorical criminals, but actual organized crime billion dollar criminals. They use modern art to launder their money and by creating a market for it have actually caused the prices to go up. The problem comes when the supply of art can't keep up with the demand to launder money. That is why the modern art shown in this thread exists. It's all meaning with 0 technical ability, which ultimately means it has no meaning.
"I'm going to make a painting of a vagina by smearing my bloody tampons on a canvas". Five seconds later she is done and sells her work to the nearest gallery, which then jacks up the price and the machine chugs along.
>>958891
In my opinion, modern and post-modern art are all just attempts by artists to push the definition of "art" as far as it can go, just for shits and giggles. Art after all can be almost anything, so artists continue to come up with "interesting" concepts of what can be considered "art"
The problem with this is like a condensed version of Poe's law, where now Art majors have been sucked into this area of artistic work and are now masturbating onto bean cans and shitting everywhere. A lot of pre-2000's modern art still at least had a very basic artistic value in it's design. This seems to be lost to the university students of today.
>>959169
Personally i think they do they most ugly, gaudy shit and i can't bear to look at it
>>958972
>But then isn't the whole "you don't understand modern art" argument flawed?
Nah, even though pieces have to be taken case-by-case and people have different opinions about them, it's still valid to say that someone is taking an approach that doesn't apply to modern art as a whole.
>>960391
Man gondolla creeps me out. Wtf is he supposed to represent?
>>959000
This is also my opinion as a painter. Lots of what succeeds is sophomoric ~ooooo I'm being provocative~ stuff which, while you Cannot Say It's Objectively Bad, is not really very interesting.
>>959169
I hate a good majority of modern political art or with heavy political undertones, themes, it's so fucking tasteless it leaves me in stiches with how ridiculous the statements come across.
It's like they've never heard of subtlety or even how to draw. Just plop on a bunch of shit in your face like a student rally.
>>959011
I've found there's something of a layman's misconception of Picasso as being entirely an abstract painter (sometimes even lumped into the ignominious category of "painting things my 9 year old could do") totally unaware he was a goddamn prodigy and master of his craft. He was painting masterpieces when he was still a teenager.
>>962288
>art has never been elitist
Modern art is kind of interesting like a house of novelties. To someone who frequents 4chan it might seem like they are just trying too hard to be edgy, but an average person would actually be "shocked out of their shells".
The problem is modern innovation has been wrongly separated from centuries of development of academic skill in classical art. The medium itself is not an arbitrary tradition that needs to be rebelled against, artists in the past chose that medium because it is so expressive, whether they want to express beauty as their religious noble patrons wanted or otherwise.
Just like industrialization has reduced the importance of human skill, the same has happened in art.
>>958865
It's absolute dogshit.
>>960532
Those two need to die a prolonged painful death.
>>962288
Who are you quoting?
>>962350
>Wtf is he supposed to represent
It symbolize the destructive power of autism
>>962346
>it's still valid to say that someone is taking an approach that doesn't apply to modern art as a whole.
And I STILL have to receive an answer as to what is the objective value of contemporary art, aka: why is it good and not just the worthless work of uninspired and unskilled people?
>>962706
>I STILL haven't received the answer as to what is the objective value of something entirely based on subjective opinion and personal taste
>>962717
>something entirely based on subjective opinion and personal taste
Then what's the point of saying that people don't understand it? If it's entirely subjective every opinion on the matter has the same value and dignity, so me saying it's garbage is just as valid as the most renowned art critic saying it's a masterpiece.
I admit I expressed myself poorly (sorry, just woke up) and what I wanted to say is: what's good about it? If you ask me why I like a certain thing and what's its merit I can give you an answer, so what's the merit of contemporary art and why it isn't trash?
>>962766
> Then what's the point of saying that people don't understand it?
It's not that they don't understand the art work itself, it's that they don't understand to approach it with subjectivity in mind.
> what's good about it?
Personally I find a lot of it pretty and the pretentious stuff annoying, but that's just, like, my opinion dude
>>962766
>Then what's the point of saying that people don't understand it?
Well that wasn't me, I was just chiming in; but I do think that dismissing something as general and broad as "modern art" completely is pretty much indefensible, it shows a lack of understanding and knowledge really of art as a whole considering the breadth of what is considered modern art, really only a temporal distinction, an era defined very loosely bya spirit of experimentation.
>>958940
you first must realise that everything you know about modern art is wrong
then you start with cezanne
>>962766
you asked a meaningless question
there is no one explanation for all of modern art. you start by looking at it from movement to movement and even then there are differing intentions depending on the personalities involved. it's not just readymades, canned shit and paint splashed on the canvas
>>959137
that's an equivocational fallacy. a three-year old's fingerpainting is art in the sense of 'arts and crafts' but it is not art as in responding to the demands of the art world/its institutions
>>959024
>Modern art is the pursuit of beauty/emotion through abstract means
not really. only some modern art is concerned with emotion
>>963128
literally says you.
>>959051
it's considered valuable if someone buys it. contemporary art is primarily about the art market these days. there will be good works that deal with this condition and bad works. you're probably thinking about art in terms of mimesis or beauty rather than a response to circumstances which is why you miss the point of contemporary art
>>959058
>I bet I can even just go to the Tate Modern, hang up an empty canvas and it would be seen as an artwork
maybe 50 years ago
>>959076
they're painted canvases not blank canvases
>>959063
this is why the idea of someone being an artist if they 'call themselves an artist' is bunk
>>959089
it 'can' be (anything 'can' be) but not everything 'is' art. there isn't really any reason it would be considered art theoretically
>>959119
i don't think you can account for everyone's reasoning on why they deal art
>>959127
i have no idea what "creative expression" even means
mona lisa is oil on panel btw ;)
>>959148
monet at least exhibited. an art college student is still learning
>inexpressive and lazy
hmm
>>959251
>nowadays
>>959455
i like how the guy you were talking to didn't respond to this
nice dubs
>>962174
'artistic merit' and 'beauty' are some of the biggest memes of the art world along with 'artist' and 'original', that's why
>>962317
i like how most criticisms against contemporary ("modern") art only use examples that make art of bodily excretions. i know you get spooked by poopies and peepees but there's no need to demonstrate such a severe lack of intellectual integrity
>>962431
>artists in the past chose that medium because it is so expressive
most 'chose' it because their fathers were artists or craftsmen
>>963135
says the art world itself. context defines art
Defenders of "real" "Art" (with a capital a) tend to forget, or just flat out are ignorant, of the fact that their art wasn't exactly created due to some artistic inspiration or genius. Instead these works were typically paid for and dictated by wealthy patrons who used the work, not to enjoy or marvel at like the middle class do today, but to display as signs of prestige and wealth. Art was enjoyed in a completely different way back then and modern museums were not so much of a thing for the middle classes to go and "enjoy" the art work.
Instead, art before the modern era, was a glorified arts and crafts exercise which usually took teams of men to complete, was specified and laid out by the patron (even down to the colours and techniques used) and was not to be enjoyed in the manner that we do today.
Our ideas of "art" and what constitutes as "art" is completely different today than it was when the Romantics and Renaissance had their dominance.
>>963168
You mean your own, personal definition of art. Sure.
>>963174
as informed by countless books and scholarly articles in art history from the renaissance to contemporary art but yeah sure i'm just spitballing friend
>>963179
The fact that modern and contemporary art exists completely renders your opinion of rigid definitions of art invalid.
>>963173
this but i'd argue that the influence of the patron was more a staple of early renaissance and by the end of the romantic period the modern idea of the creative individual genius artist had been established, but this was when museums were being established anyway
>>962317
>Muh technical ability
>Muh man hours
>>963181
am i just supposed to believe you or will you elaborate?
>>962317
>Modern art is the biggest joke of all time and the only people who are in on it are the ones making money, which are criminals. Not the metaphorical criminals, but actual organized crime billion dollar criminals.
I suppose it would be too much to ask for proof that isn't just a grand conspiracy extrapolated from a couple of articles about fraud?
>>963184
"genius" is a loose term.
>>963187
The fact that art can be considered "Art" and not be considered "Art" in different time periods and contexts is testament to the fact that any concrete rules that authority figures set about Art (similar to literature and film) don't hold any water outside their own little bubble.
>>963199
>any concrete rules that authority figures set about Art (similar to literature and film) don't hold any water outside their own little bubble.
how is this not to you 'art depends on context'? the authority figures you mention are exactly the same as the 'art world/its institutions' that i mention
![1945[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fzDaEUa.jpg "1945[1].jpg")
emergency bump
The difference between 'modern art' and the experimental art that came before it is that the latter actually had a philosophy of sorts behind it. When Duchamp submitted his Fountain to the Society of Independent Artists, for example, he was doing it as a critique of the pretensions and pompousness of art at that time, contrasted with the horrors of the first world war that was still raging on. Now, the 'experimental art' of our time (modern art) is actively engaging in and extending the pretensions and pompousness that had already existed before it. The people who make it don't make it for any purpose other than recognition, it seems. It is presented in an intentionally vague way to assure that everyone who views it can form their own 'meanings', because the art itself is devoid of any meaning, value, or content. The people who 'understand' it are often incredibly insecure about their intelligence & feel the need to assert what little they have on everyone else. Those very same people are the ones who will refer to you as a 'philistine' if you dare to call these works for what they are: intentionally meaningless objects meant to appeal to rich snobs with a strong desire to feel superior to other people.
>>967039
>implying Duchamp's Fountain isn't modern art
>>959247
I'll bait. It is art but not good art. It is a one dimensional made for a joke art
>>958856
What university do I have to go to to "get" it?
Modern art is goat. Post modern art is shit
>>963164
Of course they were limited to the materials and skills available to them, but they used them to create works of art, not fit stones together, which is a whole new kind of skill.
Like I said, modern artists have some kind of prejudice against classical art.
How long has the "tee hee I'm putting a urinal in an art gallery and calling it art to show the pretentiousness of the art world" running gag been going on for now? Why do people still think it is edgy?
>>967039
formalism definitely had a theory behind it. clement greenberg is one of the key theorists of modern art history.
the 'experimentation' of conceptual artists came after his time and they were tearing down the idea of pompous, pretentious art while avoiding commercialisation and commodification of art.
usually art does have some theory behind it. you can't survive in the contemporary art scene without knowing what you're talking about.
i'm not sure where any of your criticism comes from. 'art that i like has theory behind it, art i don't like is a bunch of insecure, pretentious snobs' is not very honest
>>967130
post-modern art is pretty good
>>967173
the bulk of contemporary art is photography. i don't know what that has to do with duchamp
bedtime bump
I'll confess, I don't know a lot about the contemporary artistic scene - but I do know some people who study art. What irritates me is when they claim (usually through performance art) to be making grand political or social comments on issues they know next to nothing about, at least not much more than your average facebook poster who mindlessly shares anything that has some text beneath a picture.
I don't know why this irritates me so much in the context of artistic expression - afterall, comedians, pundits on TV, retarded populist commentators from both the left and right do it all the time. I think it's probably just the assumed sense of intellectual supremacy that they usually have by virtue of being artists - but once again, I'm pretty much making a sweeping generalisation based on some students I know.
>Mfw nobody has posted this video
Modern "art" is the equivalent to the Internet click bait
https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
>>969000
>Prager
Oy vey!
>>969000
>proposes objective standards
>suggests none
>Levitated Mass is only the rock component
>decline of artistic standards graph "standards" with no units on the y axis
>conflates modern and contemporary
>please donate to the Art Renewal Centre, a bunch of literally whos with an unintentionally ironically hideous website
Yes, why has nobody posted this video from Prager """University""" yet?
>>958856
I'm a big fan of parody art
>>967173
>How long has the "tee hee I'm putting a urinal in an art gallery and calling it art to show the pretentiousness of the art world" running gag been going on for now? Why do people still think it is edgy?
well you seem to think it's edgy, you seem to enjoy getting a kick out of hating it. Otherwise why would you focus on >le gan of shid XDD le foundain XXDDD to the convenient exclusion of the entire breadth of a century of art?
>>968459
There's a lot of students out there that are dickheads m80
>>970889
Surely there's an art to irritating insufferables like these.
![8_andy_warhol_s_five_deaths_1963-web[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mlaLUaB.jpg "8_andy_warhol_s_five_deaths_1963-web[1].jpg")
![saturday-disaster-plebian-way-of-death-1964-silkscreen-on-canvas[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/idUxesM.jpg "saturday-disaster-plebian-way-of-death-1964-silkscreen-on-canvas[1].jpg")
>>972758
>Re: What is or isn't "art"
The problem is that "art" is a hollow word now.
Call the "Piss Christ" a "sculpture" instead of "art" and suddenly everyone's on the same page again. Talk of good or bad "art" has become incoherent but it's still relatively straightforward to speak of good or bad sculptures, illustrations, designs, architecture, music, et cetera.
>>959251
>The art world is a fucking religion nowadays
No it isn't. There is more debate about what is and isn't good than any other medium.
>and the (money influenced) tastes of some critics are taken as word of god
Art is probably used for money laundering etc. I wouldn't take money too seriously.
>everyone is required to listen to or be ostracized.
not really
>>959282
>I can explain why I like something and why I think something is valuable or good
and your explanation will be completely subjective.
>>958961
that's patently false have you ever sold your morning shit for 15 million dollars? or even for an equal amount of gold by weight? how much is your shit worth?
>>962387
As was Dali and Duchamp
>>970889
>>972240
>you seem to enjoy getting a kick out of hating it
>made you look
I don't hate it, as I said earlier "Modern art is kind of interesting like a house of novelties". I like to see what they come up with next like shoving a giant piece of wax through a doorway, just like I occasionally browse youtube and watch videos of golf balls being crushed and other random things. The problem is once you have seen the urinal you have seen it all in terms of meaning. Even Damien Hirst admits that from the urinal to this day it is still solely about trying to be edgy.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/24/british-artists-new-avant-garde-ica-damien-hirst
>“If we are looking for something radical, it is not always about shocking people. It is about being more pernicious, about getting under people’s skin,”
Different shades of edge maybe, but basically the same thing for more than a century.
At the same time modern artists find something extremely triggering about classical art, it's imperialist, it's misogyny, it's colonial, it's racist, it's bigoted, it's sexist, it's offensive, bla bla, for example.
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-classical-sculpture-helped-to-set-impossible-standards-of-beauty
Even though it is a tool that can be used however you want and would inject a new lease of life into modern art.
![anselm-kiefer-eisen-steig-1986[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/ypJysVp.jpg "anselm-kiefer-eisen-steig-1986[1].png")
>>959192
Neither El Topo nor Transformers are Movies.
Transformers is a Flick.
El Topo is a Kinematographie.
>>974582
I'm
>Surely there's an art to irritating insufferables like these.
I really don't disagree with you at all on the urinal being edgy. The statement was more or less a roundabout way of saying "yeah it's edgy, it can be art because it is edgy and meant to challenge something"
>how-classical-sculpture-helped-to-set-impossible-standards-of-beauty
And this is why I like the concept of the urinal. Because obviously art can't ever follow standards of beauty. It's a supernatural force harnessed by racists to put us down. Magical thinking at it's finest. These people need their own urinal to be done to them so that it's more publicly clear how full of shit they are.
![tumblr_mv5ahysd1u1sm6f69o1_500[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0LualUD.jpg "tumblr_mv5ahysd1u1sm6f69o1_500[1].jpg")
>>976675
>>959113
This cap pisses me off because we never see how shitty his dragon is. The post reeks of thinking he's way better than he is.
>>976719
And as an actual autist, his beef with symbolism seems pretty autistic.
>>976675
>El Topo is a Kinematographie.
You are a retardation.
