Can art threads be a thing here where we just post and talk about art?
We used to have them on /lit/ but that's pretty much done now.
>>350083
Is there a purpose for art beyond decoration?
>>350099
pleasure?
emoition?
spiritual elevation?
>>350114
Taking a few minutes of your time to look at some drawing is pure snobiness, and you know it.
>>350130
>taking a few minutes to look at a work of art that a person spent days or weeks pouring his heart into is pure snobbishness
Okay bud, throw out all your music then
>>350130
sorry for your autism lad. art and enjoyment is useless just gonna do my STEM job all day and go to bed.
Where there anons on /lit/ asking for a /his/ board? Them and /tg/ seem like the two boards with the most history discussion.
>>350180
So is art.
>>350083
Sure. Here is a painting of Sethos I before the Egyptian god, Horus.
>>350083
>>350099
Painting, photography, cinema etc... are all different method of communications that are unlike natural language.
Much like Language and speech cannot and do not replace body language they also cannot replace different mediums of "artistic communication".
Art can be looked at in many ways.
Art as producing “signs” that will push us out of our habits of perception into the conditions of creation. meaning that instead of being passive observers of things that fit within our structuring of reality(entertainment), art challenges our perceptions, making us rethink the way we look at the world.
It can produce images that cannot fall under any understanding thus forcing us to feel with our nervous system and not with our brain.
Pic is an example.
You cannot encapsulate the image since it simply does not fit any conception or imagery or structuring.
The observer looks at it and feels something without understanding.
>>350849
cont.
You can think of art, like Kant thought of it, as judgment without reasoning and and pleasure without desire.
You can accept Tolstoy's(and others) moralistic critique about art facilitating the joining of people as they all share an emotion which the artist conveyed through the work.
The the more complex, personal and nuanced the emotion the that the artist managed to make all the viewers share with him the better the piece of art.
He stretched the moral significance of art as a tool to expand humanities moral capacities and understanding of one another.
To him art that was simply for "decoration" was an abomination that did not cost the price that was needed to produce it.
>>350180
You simply lack appreciation, my friend. To truly experience visual art you must look at it deeply, the same as when you listen to music or read literature. On face value, yes it is decoration, nice noises, pretty prose, but there is so much more beyond that.
Listen to Bach's Cantata BWV 12 and truly listen to it, there is more to the arts than decoration.
>>350083
>>350861
cont.
We can think of a piece of art as a combination of rational processes and emotional ones.
A true artistic masterpiece has a balance between the too(according to say, Tarkovsky).
It is not a puzzle to be solved but also not melodramatic nonsense.
It invites explanation and feeling but it cannot be fully explained.
We can think of Art as what happens when an idea's delivery is delayed.
In poetry for example, unlike in regular communication, the "point" is stretched as long as possible, perhaps into infinity.
Into a piece of art go all sorts of inputs, different ideas, expressions, emotional descriptions and the art piece generates with them some sort of complex structure, an inner independent, self enclosed world that the the one experiencing it immerses themselves in.
>>350849
I'm not saying that art does not have aesthetic value, and can't tickle our interest. I'm saying that the bourgeoise habit of valuing artistic products in and for himself, rather than placing them in a context where they make sense and "participate into the world", is born out of snobiness, and one's need to show off his ranking in society/intellectual capacities to everyone.
>>350099
It gives people something to talk about. For some sets of people, it gives them something to agree on even where they disagree on all other things, and this facilitates the exchange of ideas in cases where there would be none otherwise.
>>350861
>To him art that was simply for "decoration" was an abomination that did not cost the price that was needed to produce it.
Then perhaps we need to ask the question in what particular society and in what context art flourished, ie at a time when complex artistic products were objects of prestige and, eventually, dominance.
>>350894
See you are dropping a lot of prestigious names here and here... a bit pretentious isn't it? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>350905
>i have no interest in art and think everyone should be able to appreciate it despite not having an interest in it.
Much like you need to study and practice mathematics you also need to learn about artistry and even create art.
Stop trying to degrade something just because you dont understand it or simply have no interest in it.
Accept that you do not care about art and do your own thing.
>>350083
>>350937
He's not name-dropping to look smart. He's referencing various ideas about Art.
>>350937
Do you know what pretentious means? How do you know those thinkers or artists are pretentious if you did not bother to study them or experience their works?
I mention those ones since I read what they had to say about art. You are simply being an idiot.
>>350905
Maybe you can think of "pretentious art" like what philosophy is to other fields.
Its highly abstract field of meta inquiry.
Many people say philosophy is pretentious and what does it even do right? Its useless. Just some old guys talking nonsense.
But the truth is that philosophy is the hidden behind the scenes discipline that rethinks thinking and is in the position to make connections and create ideas in a way that no other field can.
Well, perhaps this "pretencious art" is the same to the more "in the world" conventional art, like the design of buildings or silverware or hats..
Surely you can appreciate that things that are made solely by engineers, with the single purpose of being functional are drab and depressing? just ask anyone living in or around "Khrushchyovki"(picture related).
Well, than the pretentious museum only art can be seen as the one leading the way, exploring new territory, like philosophy in some ways.
The styles or techniques than partially trickle to things that are more conventional and would have an impact on many people. Things like architecture or fashion and so on.
>>351047
forgot pic
>>351047
A clear example from cinema are experimental film makers.
A regular viewer might look at them, not understand a thing and say its pretentious meaningless hogwash.
But, some other filmmaker, making more conventional films, sees this experimental film and uses its new technique in his mainstream film.
Suddenly what seemed pretentious becomes mainstream and effects a huge amount of following films.
>>350984
I'm not trying to degrade art. I'm saying it's must have a meaning, not only as a representation (meaning of its content), but as a thing that takes place into the world and adds something of value to it.
To make it clear, my point is that outside of a decorative and entertaining use, art becomes either useless (a loss of time), either a material for snobiness and pretentiousness.
Perhaps I'm wrong tho, that's the point of a discussion to push the wrong opinions to their boundaries.
>>350995
Yeah I'm just being a bit of a troll. I'm on 4chan, it's really that bad?
>>351024
Am in favor of it? In what sense? Being against it means artists should only create art pieces as a hobby and give their pieces for free?
Its a complicated question.
I dont really know what i think about it but its clear art of all forms interests all people and more niche art interests a niche audience..
I suppose If people value a piece of art and want to have it why cant the artist sell it?
You can ask about tax money going to artists but artists getting money from taxes and artists getting money from private citizens is different and the two I would say, in some way, might complement each other to the benefit of us all.
You need art that is not fueled by the interests of private people or simply by some lower common denominator.
There is value in an artist that can do as he pleases and be as creative as he can be.
Such conditions sometimes are able to create milestones of artistic expression that become timeless.
>>351024
>Nigga u dumb
No, I never cite people because I know you don't need to... you can express ideas you got elsewhere without citing names... except if you want to.look cultured
>>351047
>Many people say philosophy is pretentious and what does it even do right? Its useless.
Not if you see philosophy as a way to improve one's sense of morality, as a way ultimately to get a better behaviour in your day to day life.. thus it's not detached from this day to day life, where everything important take place.
Where did moral philosophy flourish? In classical democratic Athens, where the sophists and the democratic way of thinking challenged the traditional way of thinking, thus creating the need for answers.
>>351130
>I never cite people
I never cite the name of people*
>>350864
I just listened to it. This guy is right
>>350099
some sought to reform society
generally no it's just a luxury object intended to decorate but that doesn't mean it's reception is limited to just that
>>350864
you say that but you probably only 'appreciate' oil painting from the 1800s
Is the modern conception of art nihilistic?
Here is a non-nihilistic form of art.
>>351208
you may want to put more thought into the terms you use
>>350099
NIGGA. Appropriation of art is across most institutions.
Friedlander has some cool work.
>>351243
That's really good. Make me wonder how many times he attempted this particular shot until he got the perfect result. Things like the black guy almost stepping out of the painting to how the signs in the mirror blend with the bumper.
>>351308
Could've been a lot, but could've been a little. He Friendlander has a lot of these seemingly natural photomontages that come from arrangement of reflective surfaces and things on glass surfaces.
>>351308
A constructed photograph totally; remember the decade.
>>350905
>bourjewazeee
dropped.
I love marine paintings
>>351377
What is the deal m8?
>>351400
can't deal with commie-speak.
>>350937
He's quoting his sources. His sources happen to be smart.
>>352258
>filename
accurate
>criticizing the existence of art
one way to know you're severely retarded
there are more ways to communicate than just with words, and there are more ways than one to communicate with words.
>>350180
>Music is a decoration
Damn are you autistic?
>>350905
>bourgeosie
Good God, fucking communists really can't go two seconds without stealing someone's enjoyment, can they? I /like/ art. I happen to enjoy thinking about what might have been in the artist's head as he or she was crafting the work. If it is a painting, especially in Romantic or Baroque style, I can ask myself whether the emotions conjured in myself by the work are the same as those the artist was feeling whilst in the act of making. It's not about elevating myself above other people, it's about connecting myself with another person that had the presence of mind to create something outside themselves.
>>351130
This isn't about "looking cultured" you literalist twat, it's about giving due credit to someone who stated an idea before you did.
>>352378
what the artist thought has nothing to do with the fact that art was primarily made for decoration throughout history, and painted to appeal to the literate upper classes
>romantic style
>baroque style
what the hell are you talking about. there is no unified style of either
>>352482
fuck off commie shit, let me enjoy things without thinking about le class struggle for a single goddamn second.
>>350905
i'm pretty sure church commissions were put in the correct context and made to 'participate into the world' whatever that means
>>352493
>let me enjoy art without thinking about art
sure go ahead
Was Hitler a good artist?
>>352505
literally know nothing about art and know that perspective is completely fucking off.
>>352505
Why is that building camouflaged
>>352550
being aware of the fact that wealthy and literate individuals are the only people who could afford art and they used it for status doesn't make you a marxist
>>352482
>romantic style
>baroque style
>there is no unified style of either
ARE YOU. FUCKING. JOKING. Christ, I hope you're not American, I don't want to believe my tax dollars were wasted on your education.
Alrighty, Sir Dunce, tell me, what term describes that period of art in history, from about 1590-1750, wherein the Catholic Church encouraged an emphasis on action and emotional involvement, hmm? Oh yeah, that's right, FUCKING BAROQUE.
>>352587
Using that fact to disregard art as snobbish and useless outside of decoration sure is stupid though.
>>352587
YOU ARE HONESTLY SAYING THAT POOR PEOPLE NEVER MADE ART, because they are poor. I really wish I could reach through the screen and slam your head into a sidewalk mural.
Welp, I guess all those fine sketchings and trench art from the First World War don't count, now do they?
Fucking marxist shits ruin everything.
>>350905
>Bourgeoisie
>>352629
yes it's a 'period', but not a style. the style of the catholic church has no influence on protestant art of the period
>>352630
i wasn't the guy who initially said that but i thought the arguments he was making and the arguments against him both were missing the mark. i pointed out that it also sought to reform society, which isn't really snobbish when most of the time that is an attempt at liberation
>>352668
>YOU ARE HONESTLY SAYING THAT POOR PEOPLE NEVER MADE ART
nope i'm saying they didn't have the means to buy it. but i thought you were against the use of social class in art discussion, but now that's your tactic?
>>352735
They fact that they made art means they OWNED the art, not that I'd expect a communist to understand personal property. There is such a thing as creating for one's own enjoyment.
But again, your philosophy gets in the way of you ever appreciating that.
>>352769
>There is such a thing as creating for one's own enjoyment.
yeah in the period after people realised the unnecessarily privileged position of the arts... because before then it was created for decoration... for wealthy, literate individuals... have you read a single art history text?
also stop mentioning marx. i don't give a shit about marx
>>350083
>>350083
>captcha is trees
>one is a painting of trees
thanks Bob Ross
>>352785
>Stop calling me a marxist when I am one
>>352795
knowing about the history of art production and consumption doesn't make one a marxist
From Crusader Kings II,
I love this painting. Not an artist by any means so it might not stand up to a real critic's eye. The defeated general is just... so crushed. All the darkness and death behind him as a victorious, still vibrant army stands before him. It is just nice to behold.
The part that most interests me though, is the defeated general's shadow. It looks like the shadow of a man carrying a cross... the symbolism is just beautiful. The general is bearing so much on his shoulders, on his very conscious. I could be high on something, but I like to believe there is something very beautiful in this painting
>>352829
sure but like i said, art has primarily been made for decoration. that doesn't make it bad
>>352808
The guy who did all the loading-screen art for CK2 interestingly has a DeviantArt
http://zenarion.deviantart.com/gallery/?offset=24
>>352867
>he has a crossover involving a Stalkter and Dark Souls
what a based artist
>>351198
Where did you get that from? I personally love Bacon's work as an example.
>>352378
>, I can ask myself whether the emotions conjured in myself by the work are the same as those the artist was feeling whilst in the act of making.
And then they'll call me autistic, kek.
>>352385
>GET OUT OF MY STEM
No idea what stem you are talking about.
>>352493
Nothing to do with the class struggle. That rich people need material to show off their "superiority" is a fact. That snobby people need material to show off their "intellectual superiority" is also a fact.
>>352494
Because they needed decorations for their building. Nowadays people will go visiting these buildings to get "the true experience of visiting a wonder from the renaissance".
Pure snobiness.
Stopping in front of something beautiful/that tickles your curiosity and appreciating its beauty is a normal thing, but going to galleries to be surrounded with these beautiful things is typical pretentious/high caste behaviour.
The whole fiasco of modern art is a testament to this idea.
All these rich people feeling the need to visit galleries of art or buy costly works of art, just to convince themselves (and others) that they too can appreciate art, isn't it a bit pathetic?
>>353679
>but going to galleries to be surrounded with these beautiful things is typical pretentious/high caste behaviour.
What?
>All these rich people feeling the need to visit galleries of art or buy costly works of art, just to convince themselves (and others) that they too can appreciate art, isn't it a bit pathetic?
Again, what? Maybe im just not understanding how you're putting two and two together here, but museums (aside from their institutional framework and curatorial intent) are not solely pretentious spaces. There's multiple philosophies which dealt with the idea of art as 'that which is estranged' as in something outside of daily tedium, so its logical for something to be placed in its individual space to be better (or more easily; without distraction) appreciated.
>>353754
>There's multiple philosophies which dealt with the idea of art as 'that which is estranged' as in something outside of daily tedium
That's what I'm not talking about, the meaning or inherent value of a work of art.
What I'm talking about is the use that is made of this work of art, its role inside society.
In the past there was no differentiation between an artist (someone who makes art), and a craftman (someone who produces useful things), because any production was supposed to have an utility into society.
Only recently was art valued for itself, outside of its use as a decoration or as a mark of prestige.
>>353855
There has been overlap in role. Take for example the Productivist offshoot of Constructivism during post-revolutionary Russia. Art was used as an ideological tool (using ocтpaнeниe [defamiliarization] techniques) to get attempt to overthrow formalism and make art solely for social or utilitarian purposes.
The use that is made of works of art outside of inherent value occurs most often in moments when it can be appropriated by a group. The pushing of the American Avant-Garde in the cold war as a furthering of American freedom-sentiment would've been impossible without museums to dictate a new tradition. Whether the use pertained to the bourgeoisie (pushing of American Avant-Garde) or proletariat (russian Proletkult movement, for example, or Documentary Photography of the 'New Deal' era) classes varied based on the ideology.
I believe that outside of these moments, you will be hard pressed to find any overarching use of art nowadays, but I would hardly call ignorance of use in favor of appreciation of inherent value in a museum "pathetic".
>>352769
Dude, even with my high school knowledge of Marx I can tell that you never even read about him
>>354198
>I believe that outside of these moments, you will be hard pressed to find any overarching use of art nowadays, but I would hardly call ignorance of use in favor of appreciation of inherent value in a museum "pathetic".
If you don't understand but just pretend to understand because you fear to look dumb has a bit of a pathetic vibe.
If you understand then you may ask yourself why you feel the need to go to a museum for the sole purpose of contemplating works of arts.
>>352808
>that hideous filter
>that trash concept art technique
pretty bad m8.
There's a lot of better stuff here you might like:
http://www.wikiart.org/en/tag/knights-and-warriors
