Is it true that the whole concept of "modern art," all the conceptual shite like pic related that have form and ideology take precedence over actual artistic beauty and skill, is a Jewish conspiracy?
I've read that the CIA played a role in advancing the "modern art" movement in the early Cold War to counteract Soviet ideology, to prove that Americans fostered individualism in contrast to collectivism...
...but then I remember reading a thread here a long time ago about how the Jews have something to do with it...
Anybody have more information, or is this a prototypical example of blaming the kikes for everything?
>>70389497
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/ArtScam/artscam.php
conceptual art is a natural advancement of the classical avant garde
there is no conspiracy. something fresh and new (form as a vehicle for function, as opposed to form as function) with huge untapped potential and esoteric status naturally attracted "elites"
stop being dumb
>>70389636
What did he mean by this?
Art is communication via means other than prose.
>>70390059
>art is communication
Stop.
>>70389497
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r592lVqCDA
>>70389497
This post I am making right now is un-ironically art.
Check em'.
>>70390231
hmm...
It's just capitalism m8. Rich people buy this shit cuz it makes them feel smug and intellectual. It's nothing but the commidification of art for arrogant people. Also, there was the CIA pushing it to try to prove that capitalist societies could produce "creativity" too.
Something about money laundering and the CIA combating USSR ultra-realism.
>>70390361
will /pol/acks get this dank meme?
Once upon a time most people spent their entire day looking at dirt, and fields. They might go vast swathes of time without even seeing certain colors. In this setting, seeing a painting would be completely mind blowing. Just seeing a painting for a person of this time would be like you or I seeing the latest blockbuster. Thats how much it might stimulate their senses.
Fast forward to the age of mass media. Suddenly you've got cameras, and printing presses. You can pack entire art galleries into a magazine. You've got television, and movies. You're senses are bombarded by color all day every day. A painting of some guy sitting on a horse is very weak compared to all of this. But rich people still need something to sink their wealth into.
Make no mistake classic art was full of rather uninteresting and unimportant pictures of people sitting on horses that rich people nevertheless snatched up for vast sums of money. modern art is an extension of that, and serves just that purpose. a vessel for rich people to invest their inflation prone money.
don't attempt to critique modern art its pointless. there is an army of art gallery dealers and museum curators wielding an entire language of buzzwords to put you on your heels and in the end its all smoke and mirrors. the only thing that really, honestly matters is how much money the piece fetches at auction. just sit back, enjoy whatever art you enjoy, and let rich people trade jackson pollock scribbled back and forth for millions of dollars.
>>70390984
Great post
