Name one painting more based
>protip: don't even bother trying
>>420604
Romanticism was cancerous horseshit.
/pol/ tier painting
>>420604
Try naming one more overrated. It's not even that well executed, the composition is basic as fuck "lol put the guy in the middle and do whatever it takes to make that work". Painters avoiding drawing faces, feet or hands has always been the most reliable sign of laziness, this one's pulled the hat trick. Fog is some easy shit too. Using fog as a replacement for a face to represent a character's internal state is god-tier work avoidance.
similar in a way
>>421224
being this butthurt.
Relax bro.
If you think that the quality of the art directly correlates with the amount of labour it took to produce, you are a fucking stain and have no business critiquing art.
>>421301
>quality of the art directly correlates with the amount of labour it took to produce
But that's true.
t. Marxist art critic
>>421301
Yet I'm sure you believe that you believe in the labour theory of value, don't you?
>>420604
Based painting coming through
>>421324
>labour theory of value
That's different, because that largely applies to goods that have a purpose other than simply aesthetic. Of course an artisanal wardrobe or a large, well-built house or whatever are worth a lot, because you're paying for the craftsmanship and how that affects the functionality of the object. Art has no purpose outside of aesthetics, and so visual attractiveness is far more important than the amount of time it took to make.
>>421350
I'll spend 3 days picking dingleberries off my ass.
Other guy will solve a complex mathematical problem in two hours.
According to you, my dingleberry collection is more valuable than whatever the math guy just did.
It's not that it didn't take much labor, it's that the artist actively avoided labor in ways that are transparent to anyone who's ever studied art.
>>421368
That's ridiculous, because your dingleberries have absolutely no utility.
>>421379
They do for a dingleberry fetishist.
>>421398
So you're saying I'm right?
>>421414
That value is 100% subjective? Sure.
>>421371
The Artist and the methods of the production are irrelevant.
>>421415
In art? Yeah, absolutely. I was only really arguing that value isn't correlated with time or effort, which does not contradict art having only subjective value.
>>421418
Yet somehow MS paint scribbles by toddlers never make it in the big leagues
>>421423
>In art?
In everything, you stupid faggot
If I spend two weeks digging a 30 foot deep ditch in my back yard, it has no value whatsoever despite the act of digging ditches having utility.
>>421224
The one on the left is a real qt. Wonder who she was
>>421434
>It does actually, have you seen some of the modern art that sells for millions? I mean shit I could draw with my ass.
Yeah, but literally, if the artist is irrelevant, why no toddlers in the Guggenheim?
>>421450
Because the art establishment doesn't find any value in it. Doesn't mean that you or I (or even a few individual members of the cultural elite) can't find value in them.
>>421447
When the era of plastic began, the people in my ancestral village were literally throwing away antique carafes because plastic bottles were more convenient. Not even kidding now.
>>421447
Yes, if people are willing to pay more for the Ikea table.
>>421458
Right, and there's the rub, that 'can find value in it' is not the same as 'do find value in it'. Of course there are no rules for what people can find value in, but this is irrelevant to whether there are patterns in what they do find value in.
>>421461
Plastic has value in its practicality. There's a reason it rapidly supplanted tons of traditional materials.
>>421450
This is in the Guggenheim, might as well be a toddler doodle. The only value it has spawns from the fact the author managed to convince critics it has any value.
>>421472
True, but crafting a carafe takes objectively more time and skill than producing a plastic bottle. As you see, it indeed is subjective.
>>421476
Nah, a toddler wouldn't show the bias towards complementary colors that piece does, and kids all the way up to high school almost unanimously prefer elaborating a central object over covering the whole canvas.
And I'm not saying everything the art establishment picks is great, either.
>>421487
Oh absolutely. I'm not denying that value can be gauged on a number of different terms (and I'm not even opposed to the idea of value being completely subjective, just exploring it) but that's exactly it, plastic could be seen to be prized for its ideal, robust properties. It's not made by a craftsman, but it's still more practical than a traditional carafe.
>>421511
So then you basically disagree with the labour theory of value?
>>421549
Honestly, both perspectives exist in the world. Some people value labour and some don't, and neither is correct and should probably be judged by example.
>>420604
Here you go.
>gay-ass German masturbatory emo shit
>based
Better painting by the same artist
>>421836
What's this called? I'd reverse image search it but my mouse is broken...
>>421989
Nun at the beach or something
>>420604
This painting is perfect. I've got to visit Hamburger Kunsthalle someday to see this live.
>>421786
Agreed. Jacques-Louis David is a god-tier painter.
Real nigga painting coming through
>>422018
David is pretty sweet, all the stuff about his relationship between his work and the revolution is pretty interesting
The french sure have this whole painting thing down. Love me some Courbet
Here's another excellent French painter, Manet. Just look at this fucker willingly defy expectations of conventional representation while simultaneously employing those conventional techniques to demonstrate his complete understanding and subsequent rejection of them. The absolute madman.
>>420604
I hate this painting. It brings out my inner leftist faggot
It's symbolic of the atrocities of the colonial period and the western "hurr durr gotta conquer gotta conquer" mindset. The manmade clothing is an unwelcome intruder in the otherwise isolated environment. In this painting I feel the beginnings of humanity otherizing itself from the rest of nature.
>>420604
I've seen this painting over 100 times over the last few years and just today I realized that all that white fluff is clouds. I thought the scene was an ocean of water and the white was waves crashing against the rocks. Turns out it's the sky and the rocks are the tops of large distant cliffs and peaks.
>>422193
>Wanderer above the sea of fog
>fog
>>420604
>>420604
>Oh look at me lookin all cool staring across a cool landscape im so fucking dramatic thinkin of life and thigns
>icon of existentialism
one of the first works of fedoras for fedoras
Neo classicism fucking sucks. Emotionally it always falls completely flat. As a genre it's almost as dull as the pre-raphelite movement...
>>422101
>defy conventional representation
Could you explain this?
>>420604
Not even a contest
>>421224
>"lol put the guy in the middle and do whatever it takes to make that work"
read about the context of a picture before going full shitpost please
>Baited
He had some issues
>>422476
Rothko's paintings are amazing when you see them up close in a museum. They look dull as hell on a picture though.
>>422476
>5deep7me
>>420604
I like this one a lot. I actually like the wanderer above the sea fog too even if it has been pretty overrated since it became mainstream, but I think that there's more powerful paintings. Like this christ.
>>422505
The only thing deep about that picture is that one shade of red.
It's just color anon.
>>422495
I don't get the feeling you're supposed to get when you stand in front of a Rothko, but I understand why people feel something.
Not sure if I like this or The Gulf Stream better.
>>422598
Gulf Stream
>all this romanticism
Everytime.
Be more plebeian, please.
>>420604
>>422652
>not feeling the majestic awe of nature
I feel sorry for you.
>tfw nobody will ever make portraits of you
>>422404
At the time the conventions of how things were to be depicted and what constituted "good painting" were rigidly defined by the salon system. Paintings were appraised at how well they adhered to academic standards and any deviation was judged to be a lack of skill on the painters behalf. This led to what we might consider a bit of stagnation with endless repetition of the same subjects in the same styles.
Manet goes about his paintings in a way that critics of the time might have considered arseways. In the image I posted the figure of the man is blending into the dark background almost merging into it. This would be against "good" painting practice, which would say for example that a figure should be distinct from it's ground (the surrounding area). However in the same image Manet demonstrates that he understands this concept by clearly defining the two female figures in contrast. So now we have an artist who is clearly skilled enough academically, but is willfully going against that convention anyway.
This has the effect of not only fucking with critics but also opening up new ways of painting things. The figure receding into the ground confuses the space of the image and creates new visual interest that otherwise wouldn't be there. It willfully confuses the planes that are usually so carefully constructed to give the illusion of depth and in doing so grabs the viewers attention a different way.
>>422531
Yeah, but what a colour.
>>422683
How do you know that was what Manet was doing?
>>422677
The majestic isn't real though, it's pure escapism
>>422751
You have never felt a legit resonance with majesty?
Ocean does it for me every time. Perfect tits too.
>>420604
a new challenger approaches
>>420604
I don't know why you "nothing less realist than early impressionists" turbo autists like this lazy fucking painting, must be because the heavy handed imagery is so blatant event the most blinkered literalist can understand.
>>422772
I dislike a lot of romantic paintings because I feel like they come across as terribly insincere. To each his own, though.
>>422712
Well, by looking at his paintings for one thing. His work is full of this stuff. Look at the woman in the background, bitch is huge. according to the perspective info the picture gives us through the size of the figures in the foreground and the way the space recedes she should be way smaller. If she was up close to the other figures she'd be like ten feet tall. The figures in the foreground are all in scale with each other, as are the bushes and trees in the background. Either Manet had a giantess fetish or he's trying to tell us something.
The other way is by picking through the word salad that constitutes academic thought on painting. There's been a lot written about impressionism in general, and some of the stuff that starts here with Manet will go on to be crazy obsessions for 20th century art. People like Roger Fry were writing at the time about this stuff and more recently lads like TJ Clark have had some interesting things to say. There's a lot of stuff by shit hawks like Clement Greenberg about the flatness and breakdown of the picture plane too.
The other way I can (somewhat) claim to know this is by historical context. Painting was pretty much stuck in a rut and photography was rapidly becoming a thing. What was there for painters when we would soon be able to do their job with the push of a button. Manet's pushing at the boundaries is symptomatic of a whole art form realizing it was about to be made obsolete and asking itself what the fuck it was doing. Which incidentally it's still doing to this very day.
Just look at that rain! O, the layers!
>>422951
Herein lies the problem of our age: when classically trained and aesthetically gifted artists experiment with the subversion of convention, great art is the result. When some random pleb, however, tries to hop on the rebel bandwagon and experiment in the same way, he produces bollocks.
Hm. Maybe the espousal of such onanistic progressiveness by the art establishment simply sets the stage for a reactionary counterforce, thus resetting the cycle. If that's true, I hope the antithesis to whatever movement today's fine arts majors constitute is coming soon.
>>422951
So Manet never said anything like 'this is why..' And it's all just speculation? There isn't a chance that Manet just got the perspective wrong?
whilst I appreciate how artists can use symbols and composition to communicate meaning, I can't help but take the speculations of art historians with a pinch of salt when there isn't any corroborating evidence from the artist (journals, manifestos etc).
>>420604
Chinks have a quote " The Heaven and Earth are under my feets" described the ambition of a man, this picture is perfectly fit for that
>>422920
I don't think you actually know why you don't like it.
>>423020
I'd love to find you a better example but the only direct quote I can find (within my lazy parameters) is from "A brief history of painting" by Roy Bolton. Not exactly a very academic source but the best(and closest) one to me. on page 200 Manet is quoted saying "we have been perverted by the recipes of painting... who will deliver us from all this prissiness?" in regard to the salon system. There is plenty of letters and such between him and his mates about what they were doing and what went on at the time that can give a better idea of what they were thinking.
The idea that just because Manet doesn't spell everything out exactly isn't really an issue. They're paintings after all. If you could say these things more effectively through speech or writing then he probably would have done that. Some things are hard to pin down with words though. Particularly things relating to visual language. That's why we paint pictures.
Also interpreting/reading too much into stuff is part of the game. Some times a reading of a work can uncover interesting facets of it we didn't notice, or tell us something about the times and people that created it. That's not to say that anything goes though. If an idea about a work is interesting, adds to the work and is generally useful it will be kept. If its a load of bollocks spewed by some cretin it will be laughed out of the studio. Artists talk a lot and mostly about paintings. Over time consensus emerges and is sometimes overturned. For example Courbet has been the subject of renewed interest because of new readings about his work and accurate depictions of social conditions at the time. Klimt was a fucking nobody until recent decades too, when his style came into vogue somewhat.
>>420604
Anything by Pavel Viktorovich Ryzhenko desu
>>423134
OK well thanks for the explanation. I'll do some reading on Manet. He's an interesting artist.
>>423015
It's not really the lack of classical training as much as a shift in priorities. Ideas over materials, context over content etc. A lot of people who paint stuff that most people hate could draw and paint beautifully, they just weren't into it. Picasso or Mondrian are good examples of this. And if your into painting then the more out there stuff becomes fantastic. I guess it's like hipsters on /mu/ only listening to crazy out there shit. Sooner or later pretty landscapes just don't give you that buzz anymore and you have to move onto stronger stuff.
Also, the misconception that the abstract stuff is somehow easy to do or lazy is total bollocks. Just try to do some of the stuff you see in these vilified paintings. Make a Rothko or a Pollock. Guess what, shits hard. Gonna grab a sheet of a1 paper and a few poster paints and give it a go? good fucking luck. Better get used to making rabbit skin glue constructing giant ass stretchers and telling your stand oils from your damar varnish all the while working withing a viscous critical framework that demands acute awareness of fucking everything in 20th century culture. Painting is goddamn alchemy and this abstract shit pushes the medium well beyond what you'd think it can do. But yeah, I can understand why people get turned off. I'd still recommend giving it a shot. Nothings ever as bullshit as it seems.
>>423153
No problem bro
>>423198
>Also, the misconception that the abstract stuff is somehow easy to do or lazy is total bollocks.
Agreed. However, I do maintain that abstract pieces which are entirely non-representational are both easy to do and lazy, logistics of splattering paint on canvases notwithstanding.
Maxfield Parrish is an astonishingly underrated artist.
>>422656
Yup, I was about to try and post this. Probably my favorite painting, although the Divine Comedy illustrations made by Gustave Doré rank amongst my favorite examples of visual media ever.
>>422526
I imagine this is pretty much what Jesus would look like if he knew all the things that have been done in his name and the name of his successors over the centuries.
>>422442
What purpose do the giant spikes serve? To screw up the sails of any ship that gets too close?
>>423238
I of course agree they can be, I've seen a lot of shitty paint splatters. But I've also seen some fantastic ones. And the shitty ones don't tend to get all that much attention anyway. Plus it's a lot of fun to splash paint around, you can do some crazy stuff. It's a lot more fun to just worry about colour and tone than say, lovingly rendering some Greek hero's arse cheeks for the millionth time. At the end of the day those abstract formal elements that become the focus in non representational art are what we find engaging about all images, be they figurative or abstract. (Not decrying the old representation here by any means, have a turner, who is art canonically the GOAT)
>>422442
>mfw whenever I look at this picture I can't help but think the spikes are actually an infinite row of anachronistic trebuchets and Richelieu is overseeing the pounding of some rebels into absolute dirt.
>>423238
My experience is that you can do easy, lazy painting right after you've come up with something new to do, but as you make a series, even if you have every intention of being as lazy as you can, you figure out ways to make the technique a little better at the expense of a little time. You never want your next painting to be worse than your last, so the fussiness basically only ratchets up until your perfectionism is slowing you down and it's not an easy technique anymore.
>>420604
gg no re
>>423354
get rekt
Frederic Edwin Church? No one? Really?
what the fuck
>>423267
this painting makes me feel things... i like it
>>423320
I think i have seen this place in GTA V
>>423292
Richelieu is both besieging the protestants of La Rochelle and defending himself from the english navy who tries to break the blockade. The levee and the giant wood spikes are the naval equivalent of the wall the Caesar built around Alesia.
>>421778
>gay-ass French phalo-centric classical shit
>based
>>423580
Literally what's wrong with "phalo-centric" shit, whatever that means?
>>423596
Shit's gay.
>>423596
it means you want the dick
>>422411
wow. I love this one. got an id?
>>422973
Not bad for a tollbooth operator, huh?
>>422683
This is an excellent fucking post.
t. art history lover, (owned 30+ art books, crawled 10+ art spaces, destroyed sublimity of 5+ works by explaining them to death)
>>422951
He expresses distaste for the person, but I like this poster even more just for the fact that he is aware of Clement Greenburg, the big AbEx promotor and apologist.
>>423544
Happily, catholocism ultimately falls, which gives the picture its ultimate gratification.
>>421301
Who are the best living hyper-realism painters?
>>423354
Sorry posters, winner here
>>422840
Jesus Christ how horrifying
>>422782
damn she's fine as hell
![ep89.21.1.R[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mK7R4r4.jpg "ep89.21.1.R[1].jpg")
This one is much more powerful and impressive in person.
>>423440
epic, I like it
>>422656
Pretty mediocre
>muh crazy eyes
>>422442
This is probably one of the most badass paintings of all time
Richeliu standing there, the only bright color except the fires in the background
Ships bombaring Rochelle
Standing a bit away from him, holding his hat
thousands of soldiers sent to die by his order
>>422679
I love this one; dude looks like he belongs in a JRPG
Step aside faggots
>>423063
He doesn't like it because he's a Jew and beauty offends his senses.
>>424044
Thank you anon
>>424057
Greenberg was an arsehole, but that doesn't mean I hate Abstract Expressionism too. Lots of interesting stuff going on there.
>>423440
That is a fantastic painting. I'm less of a fan of the Hudson river lads. Little too syrupy for my taste at times but this one is great. Plus the whole "manifest destiny" thing that runs through it is a bit much. If you're after a good American painter my moneys on Hopper. That honest way he has of capturing light can't be beat.
Really like this for some reason.
>>423639
Vasily Polenov, Bolnaya(?)
>>423291
Would Muhammad feel the same?
>>424887
It's pretty great.
>>424918
Thanks for the kind words anon.
>>421368
obviously, for you, assuming the person who solved the problem did so for his own benefit as there was a problem who needed application of mathematics.
>>421427
>MS paint scribbles by toddlers never make it in the big leagues
now you are discussing commodification and value placed on art due to cultural significance;
you see art, as culture itself, is part of the social spheres of the superstructure. Its role is to present the unification of life, which has been divided into different parts. When power uses the art, it's to project a pseudo-common aim to the proletarians, so that they will have an image of a pseudo-unity when interacting with the divided spheres of life: work, free time, nationhood etc.
Art presents life unified. If class relationships are to be destroyed, and with them the society of divisions that gave art its initial role, art's purpose then is to die, so that life itself can become art.
That means power supports the art which presents life as a unified world in order, under the power. Any form of art can be appropriated by the capitalist world, as history has proven. That means that art (sadly, despite our youthful convictions) cannot destroy capitalism. Only the destruction of art can destroy capitalism. And how does one destroy art, under this definition? By making one's life art, by corporating art into daily life. Taking it out of canvases, out of songs, out of plays, making your life art destroys the purpose of art.
"The nicest sculpture is a stone finding a cop's head"- graffity by anonymous on a wall in Paris during the '68 uprising.
>>423440
So cheesy ugh.
I generally dislike military themes but this one evokes just the right combination of serenity, dread and appreciation of valour
couldn't find a better res though
>>425177
I don't think you know what that word means.
>>422782
who is this semon demen
>>425184
I agree with that anon. I'm not usually into military themes either but this one breaks the mold.
>>424533
Hehe, Sir Dicks
>>420604
>>420604
This one is just for giggles
>>420604
I actually hiked to the site of that picture a few months ago.
I love CDF as much as the next guy, but your taste is extremely basic and you're most likely completely new to 'the arts'.
Visit exhibitions. Read books.
The longer I look at this the better it gets
>>423198
People like You Are the only reason I keep coming to this shitty place. Thanks for making it less shit my man
All these 'a toddler could do it' 'muh cultural marxism types make my blood boil, good patience on your side. Goes a long way.
Here's i one i like with a bit of historical tint too.
Perhaps not the grandest one, but i enjoy it.
I really like this painting but I don't understand it.
Is the woman Mary?
Is the guy praying a specific person in history?
>>426050
Thank you for the kind words anon. It's pretty cool to have a place on 4chan to discuss this kind of thing, I've learned a lot from helpful anons here in the last few weeks so I'm pretty happy to actually contribute to the conversation for once. Hope we can have more threads about painting/visual arts in general around here from time to time. It's pretty interesting stuff.
>>426121
Not familiar with this one myself but a quick google reveals it to be by this fella
http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/v/vernet/horace/index.html
While I'm not particularly familiar with a lot of this, the time frame would have it being of the more academic style that Impressionists were breaking away from. The yearly salons would have been full of paintings like this of very high quality but overly similar subject matter. Paintings tended to be ranked in tiers of perceived importance with history paintings and allegorical scenes from the bible etc being the top dog ranging down to still life being bottom tier. since no one knew what historical figures actually looked like the made up conventions of representation for particular characters. For example, Moses is typically given horns to distinguish him.
So as far as I can guess, yeah those people might well be allegorical depictions of some well known scene. Not that I have a clue what it is though, could be a representation of a historical scene or even bloody Shakespeare for all I know. I'm no expert on the whole symbolic language of it. It is pretty interesting though, you can trace particular characters and how the look of them develops over time/ between schools.
>>420604
>I am a boring and trite person, who thinks basic platitudes have a lot of deep rich meaning.
thats what you sound like when you say thats your favourite painting
/his/ knowledge of the arts is so fucking laughable I swear to god.
>>421368
Where in the labour theory of value does it say all labour is worth the same amount?
>>420604
>Name one painting more based
>>426668
>>426671
>/his/
Waterhouse
>>423291
>I imagine this is pretty much what Jesus would look like if he knew all the things that have been done in his name and the name of his successors over the centuries.
Or once he realised what humans must go through in their lives.
>>421324
>Yet I'm sure you believe that you believe in the labour theory of value, don't you?
You are a moron, right?
>>425116
>That means power supports the art which presents life as a unified world in order, under the power.
Ahistorical, at least for the West in the 20th century. Abstract expressionism, ffs.
>Any form of art can be appropriated by the capitalist world, as history has proven.
This is true, but by no means unique to capitalism.
>Only the destruction of art can destroy capitalism
Wew Lad Honestly
There are lots of interesting things to critique about art under capitalism but this is an iffy salad.
>>426676
>>426671
>>426668
Frankly the answer this thread deserved
