>implying you understand art
>implying you understand the meaning of this painting
>implying you feel art
Most of what is considered modern art is meaningless shit.
Great artists arrive at stripped down beauty, most modern artists will just throw shit on a canvas or have some half-assed performance as part of their piece and expect to be considered deep, while they lack the talent and mastery to make something complex.
Modern art is just about baiting people into buying your stuff. Hence, the more harmless an open to interpretation, the better. I miss when art actually took sides and meant someth... no, wait
>it's just a brush splatter bro xd
There, happy?
>>25098192
that looks like a fuckin gameboy screenshot
>>25098239
>>it's just a brush splatter bro xd
ree
>>25098214
>what is considered modern art is meaningless shit.
Can't argue with that.
https://youtu.be/wKFZOIv5sS0
>>25098341
I understood it
>>25098386
Bravo
https://youtu.be/KMm8GjoDNZ4
>>25098192
>art
LoL
>>25098465
*sigh* ...so typical... this place is hopeless
>>25098192
IF YOUR ART DOESN'T INVOLVE DRAWING LOLIS YOU ARE A SHIT
A SHIT
>>25098483
*yawn*
this is boring desu fampai
>>25098459
I'd be super pissed if that happened when I was there. The things (everything, paintings, sculptures even more so, beautifully arranged) in that museum are so beautiful, and having a pretty girl thinking she's an artist because she shows people her vagina would make me fucking furious.
>>25098495
KICK HER IN THE FUCKING VAGINA
MAKE HER BLEED
>>25098509
Nu-males don't have the balls to do it.
>>25098192
>modern art
>LOOK GUYS I FILLED MY ASS WITH BLUE PAINT AND DIARRHEA BLASTED IT OVER A CANV- ERR I MEAN IT SYMBOLICALLY EXPRESSES THE HUMAN CONDITION!! ONLY 100,000 SHEKELS BUT IT WHILE IT'S HOT FOLKS
post original art
now
ree
>>25098528
>go to prison for assault
>lose everything youve worked for
How do you people even function with a head full of dumb thoughts like this?
>>25098799
what are you implying desupai
>>25098799
>kicking woman in her rotten, disease ridden pit of despair
>assault
This is the problem. Manginas.
>>25098341
At this point we should consider this like the Mysteries in ancient Roma, those people are mad priests doing occult things that we cannot comprehend and should be left alone, least we don't mind being dismembered by those modern Maenads and our blood to be used on their next artwork.
>>25098192
>he browses 4chan
>he thinks he has an ounce of culture
You pretentious fucks belong on Reddit.
>>25099215
you are one sad fuck
Lads, riddle me this
If modern art is shit (and it is shit)
And contemporary painters using old techniques to replicate classic styles feels insincere
Is art stagnantor maybe even dead?by art here of course I'm referring to painting, the other arts are mostly fine
>>25099332
Art is probably dead. Perhaps not fully dead but barely alive. Art that means something is dead but that doesn't mean visually appealing things aren't being created, however.
>>25099230
Thank you for the reply.
Blox
>>25099332
Old art is religious fanart or muh deep meaning, new art is 2deep4u or muh deconstruction. It's all trash and always has been. Artists aren't geniuses, they have the same ideas everyone else does, only they put them on a canvas and think they're something new and important.
>it's a "loss of innocence" episode again
>it's an "awareness of death" episode again
>it's a "not-so-subtle political message" episode again
>etc
Art is just a recorded idea and every idea has been thought of already.
>>25098459
I'm oddly amused by this. It's merely fighting vulgarity with vulgarity. We admire a picture of a twat but when a lady sits and exposes her twat we get upset. That may be because I see The Origin of the World to be a vulgar display that isn't deserving of any admiration. This women is just showing us that double standard.
However I would venture to say that the folks clapping in the video don't see it that way but rather "hurr durr, she has vagina too!" I think it was a fair critique on her part merely because the origin piece is vulgar itself.
>>25098192
>my subjective tastes are better than yours
ok, have fun worshiping piles of shit, hippy
>>25099582
For clarification I should add I don't see her action as art but rather a mockery and criticism of the painting. A vulgar satire.
>>25099582
>implying the concept of vulgarity exists in the modern world
The performance art was literally "hurr durr, I have a vagina too." She wasn't exposing anything but her cunt. I wish what you said was true, but I think you're giving her too much credit.
>>25099713
But that's all the painting is too. An exposed cunt. Subjectively I see a mockery of the vulgarity of the original painting. Objectively it's just two exposed cunts one in painting and one in flesh.
I probably am giving too much credit as I conceded previously but I'd like to see it as a satire. At least that thought let's me think she put a little more thought into what she was doing rather than "guys! vagina!"
>>25099628
>subjective
Art should be objective desu
Paintings of young girls are pretty good desu.
The french had good taste, too bad it's from their nation where modern art came from and all that shit degenerated into worse shit. What's even worse is that my opinion would make most people think I'm pedo when I'm not attracted to girls this young IRL.
Just look at this. I imagine that the artist was trying to capture the time when a girl is slowly transforming into a woman.
>>25099917
>>25099942
And here's a painting of a young woman to put in contrast with these two. It's funny how attraction slowly arises from the transitioning to maturity.
>>25099917
>>25099942
too young
>>25099991
too old
reee
>>25098214
You're a blithering idiot. You're the type of person to walk into an art history course, look at a Rothko, and say "I could have done this when I was 12. What makes him special?" Then you're most likely too stupid to realize context of why it's important or the significance of why the artist made it. Get bent, bro. Art is cool.
>>25100031
I enjoy this painting you've posted. Not because it means anything but because it is visually attractive to me. The colors are inviting and the duality between a little yellow and a lot of orange is pleasant.
>>25099991
I would bang her so hard
>>25100059
This desu. It's not actually that bad, I mean, I wouldn't call it art but it's not visually unappealing by any means.
Reminder that abstraction in art only developed on a larger scale, because the value of this photorealistic style quickly became nil, due to the advent of photography.
>>25100059
But that's the point. Rothko and other colorfield expressionist were the first to pass the threshold of "what art does for other people," into "what are does to the individual." All of his works are about the feelings you receive from standing in front of his massive paintings. It's religious to an extent. And that meaning is awesome. Look up Rothko Chapel if you're interested in more.
>>25100112
Also this so hard. Art became more about release and expression since it's focus shifted from realistic depiction.
>>25100113
That's just fancy pontificated way of saying "Art is meaningless and subjective." The most one can do is turn this lack of meaning into a meaning in and of itself. You've found meaning in subjective emotional response which is fine but that's not an intrinsic meaning by any means. I'm still a fan of minimalism and abstraction just the same.
>>25100031
>"I could have done this when I was 12. What makes him special?"
You can have that same opinion from an educated perspective. The fact that someone doesn't adhere to the standard art school interpretation of what art is doesn't make their opinion invalid. Some people still think art should require skill and should be objectively beautiful (and believe that objective beauty exists), believe it or not.
>>25100183
Umm, sure. But isn't most of all things meaningless and subjective? Then we dive into the conversation of existentialism_bruh.png, and I don't really want that. I just believe that when an artist finally crossed that boundary from painting to viewer with a deep intent emotional interaction, that it was amazingly cool and definitely not "shit" like everyone else is saying in this thread.
Painting isn't art
Art is: Tricking you with statements that the painter's painting art
Without an explanation it's just pretty little marks. The market sold imaginations just to keep you in the dark, like how you bitches need a cosign to rock a fashion. Like you can't see a bigger picture without a caption until some critic goes and write it out. A long winded trite amount of words that you can slide around a website and fight about.
Meaning's what your life's without. You're living with your lights out
>>25100267
Oh, no! I never wanted to imply a lack of inherent meaning meant a painting was shit. Quite the opposite, it's is beautiful because it has subjective meaning in the individual. However this is a dangerous thought too because it leads rise to the vulgar art that was posted earlier. I never claimed to be a proper philosopher. Perhaps my disgust at it's vulgarity is a fair enough meaning?
But I see a disconnect in our views when you say "...with a deep intent emotional interaction." You think an artist paints to illicit a specific emotional response? I think that is nearly impossible. Take our aforementioned painting "The Origin of the World." In that painting I see vulgarity while you may see creativity femininity while another sees arousal. That disjoint shows that a specific emotion response is difficult.
If, however, subjective emotional response is your meaning and end game then I think we may see eye to eye.
>>25098259
I thought it looked like the MGM intro in a movie
>>25098192
the wounds of jesus christ? he's in the center and the other two dudes with him are to the left and to the right
>>25098192
Entertainment > Art
Prove me wrong
Protip:You can't.
>>25100627
Art is entertainment.
>>25100606
you are onto something
>>25098192
I don't, but I like it.
I don't care about the one true meaning. I like works open to interpretation.
I don't really care to understand art.
If it is aesthetically-pleasing to me, that is enough.
I don't look for/want meaning in art.
>>25101122
what do you think about this? original question
>>25101232
For me it's a burnt polaroid of a sunset
Or some sort of heavily heated metal mold
Either way it's nothing special I guess.
But I love the orange. It makes me calm. And I guess it works that way thanks to the surrounding black.
So I don't know if it's good or bad. I don't really care. The colors are nice, and that makes it nice to watch. At least for me.
>>25098192
>implying you understand the meaning of this painting
>implying that's not up to the audience
Since the entire works of Shakespeare could potentially be produced by enough monkeys at enough typewriters who completely lack authorial intent, Shakespeare is meaningless.
Right?
RIGHT!?
>implying you understand art
I enjoy certain schools of artistry. Such as the Hudson River School and more specifically the works of Thomas Cole. Most of the paintings and styles I enjoy have some historical significance, such as the Dutch Old Masters like Brueghel and Peter Paul Rubens
>>25101415
Literature usually aways has a meaning, though. It's the basest form of art because it so easily expresses an idea in a very straight forward way. That's half the reason literature is so popular is because it builds to a logical conclusion; it makes senses. Everything character, every action has a meaning in the framework of the writing. If we were Romeo we would have purpose but we are outside the story and because of this it is just a meaningless story.
>>25101515
Any meaning derived from any artform is collaborative, and in part subjective.
Objectivity in literature is really intersubjectivity. Words aren't inherently meaningful, we give them meaning, we agree on their meaning.
>le artfag hipster cucks on my /r9k/
Get out you viking bearded piece of shit
I live in Miami and went to art basel this year, there was an exhibit where it was literally just a crumpled piece of tin foil.
>>25101556
I agree with your preposition with subjectivity. However I believe that language, even if the meaning is not inherent but ascribed, is mostly universal accepted. Because we all agree that "Romeo swung his sword" means just that then that is what the sentence means. Stringing these universally agreed upon words together in a coherent manner to create a story that has a meaning within the story.
Romeo swung his sword for a reason and later on we learn the it's important to the story. The story would not be the same without this action of meaning. However, outside of the story it's just a meaningless story.
I suppose what I mean to say is an objective meaning is easy to get from literature because the author means literally what he says while more abstract forms of art are devoid of our collective ascribed meaning leading them to be purely subjective.
>>25099814
it is subjective, but your subjective tastes are just that, subjective
how can you call yourself an artist while claiming others are not superior enough to "feel" your art? someone genuinely inspired and creative would not care about such nonsense
>>25098483
>>25098509
>>25099917
>>25099942
>pedos plz go
>>25101477
>Hudson River School
There is no way you're serious.
This is a nice thread, we should have more /art/ threads desu
>>25100627
They're the same or overlap. You're not going to enjoy incoherent plots/persons for a story or unorganized screeching/scratching as music. Unless you're crazy. Shit has to be in harmony with the other elements involved otherwise it's retarded.
>>25101556
>>25101760
We do choose the meanings for words (subjective) but their meanings are distinct from one another (objective). When we form a language (or do anything really) we employ laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction. It's inherent in our thinking. "x" means "x" and not "everything else that is not x". By this we can classify things and put them in distinct groups. Laws of logic are always true thus objective. If you try to deny the law of non-contradiction you have to employ the law of non-contradiction.
>>25102002
iktf bro
The problem is there is no dedicated board for traditional art. Discussions like these sporadically occur on /p/,/his/,/int/, and /pol/. You just have to start a discussion and hope the thread doesn't get pruned or deleted.
>>25100188
>Some people still think art should require skill and should be objectively beautiful (and believe that objective beauty exists)
You don't understand what modern degeneration of art is about.
It is overfocusing on quality (in the qualitative vs quantitative sense) at the expense of quantity. 'Quality of quality' versus 'quantity of quality'.
Modern 'artists' increasingly take out 'art is novel' out of its context, and act as if it were the *sole* determinant of art; which results in the infamous 'pushing of boundaries' at the expense of good old compositional skill, objective beauty which *does* exist, and *amount* of factors in a piece that are novel. In other words, the proverbial 'shit on canvas' acts as if 'we haven't seen it before' is sufficient, without the necessary 'it provokes *many* feelings', 'it provokes *subtle* feelings', 'it is pleasant to watch', 'there are many intra-piece and inter-piece relationships', and so on, are neglected.
But go on, continue to apologize degeneracy.
>>25100031
Rothko may have legitimate reasons for painting the way he did
But his paintings are still ugly as sin and boring
>>25103390
In other words, modern 'artists' strive to pleb-ize the definition of art.
>>25101942
Why? The Hudson River School produced many great works and artists
>>25103471
This looks like a zoomed-in Civilization II game.
>>25103471
Because it's pure kitsch.
It's the kind of "art", you see art students try selling you at some shitty garage sale.
>>25103471
I like Cole, he painted nice stuff
>>25103498
>Because it's pure kitsch.
This looks like a circular definition.
>>25103464
>pleb-ize
I believe the word you are looking for is "bastardize".
>>25098495
The point she was making was that the artist of the painting didn't actually understand how vaginas work. It's supposed to be a super progressive piece of art because depictions of the vagina up close and naturalistic like that weren't common. Tbh, I think her performance, despite its simplicity, was funny and successful . It's much better than all the feminist bullshit in art today in that it's a humorous way of pointing out the fact that one of the most celebrated male artists didn't know what a fucking vagina looked like.
>>25103534
I'm justpushing the boundariesof morphemic productivity.
>>25099332
>>25099436
> Non artists declare art dead
kek
Some of the best art is the kind with a scary background to it.
>>25103534
(Also, that doesn't manage to imply that artists do that to appeal to the average viewer.)
>>25103671
>artists
*'artists'
