I know I'm going to sound like an old man yelling at a cloud and will piss some people off, but 99% of contemporary art really is utter horsecrap.Even artists educated at an academy seem to start pretty quickly from "do anything, everything is fine", instead of actually mastering basic/classical techniques and aesthetics. They only seem to learn the latter in theory, but in practice it's always this vague, interdisciplinary performance bullshit.I'm not even going to get into the ideological crap attached to it, the form alone is so amateurish and undefined that it's genuinely perplexing. I see this stuff a lot in my city and they always use the same vague lingo. It's genuinely nauseating at this point how vapid everything is. Here's an example:"Before the installation, she was in an artistic crisis and had not created anything for a long time. She found a way out of the crisis in the idea of transferring an element - metallized foil - from her home to the gallery space and multiplying it there. "Until the last moment, I didn't know exactly what would be created. I surrendered to intuiting," she described her artistic process.In this artificial space, a shift occurs from the personal and practical to a space created by her imagination. She understands the installation as an intimate imaginary state in which a balance is reached between two contrasting states. She emphasizes, however, that the seemingly simple and purified holistic treatment of the space allows the visitor to enter and read differently: what matters is what the viewer brings with them and how they can indulge in the experience themselves."So you can bring random garbage from home into a gallery, scatter it around, and suddenly it's an "interactive installation" about space, perception, or whatever, with a paragraph of vague buzzwords to go along with it.This kind of nonsense is basically what most of the contemporary art I see boils down to.How the fuck did we get to this point? No wonder nobody takes the arts seriously anymore.Are there any books that actually go into this?
Mein kampf. he talks about the postmodernist plague (why he got rejected from art school)
It's not that complicated. Almost everything (at least in visual art) has been done already so your options are>make something derivative but aesthetically pleasing>make some bullshit that is unique but meaninglessthe art world favors the latter because the former is an admission that humans are out of ideas
>>25242654But that's the thing: it's not actually unique, and the whole "everything has been done" premise is lazy. Within any real discipline, whether it's painting, music, writing, whatever, there's still an enormous amount of unexplored space if you actually care about beauty, form, structure, and craft.
>>25242641tom wolfe, the painted wordjean baudrillard, the conspiracy of art
filtered
>>25242654>>25242655And let me add that I'm using the word "beauty" in the arts very loosely. I think Bartok's string quartets are beautiful despite being avant-garde and savage, because they're still formally tight and grounded in real technique like counterpoint. That's the kind of thing I mean.
>>25242649No he doesn'tNeither was ir the reason he was rejectedPost modernism wasn't even a thing at all when he attempted to get into art school
>>25242656>tom wolfe, the painted wordInteresting name of the critics.
>>25242654i think this is half true. the problem is not that 'the aesthetically pleasing' is a finite domain that the past cultures of the earth fully mapped, the problem is that it's impossible now to build up a substantial culture that, like past cultures, could invest an aesthetic style with its collective desire. so you can only copy outmoded styles that are still indirectly associated with the desires of the lost collectivity the once directly spoke to - or you can make, as you said, bullshit that is unique but meaningless to all except your small circle of likeminded scenester pals. and even then, do your scenester pals *really* understand the strange fragment of subjective experience that's driving you? it's only us, each locked in our separate rooms; the fascinating but depthless screen; and the meaningless outer chaos of the market flows. you cannot make art in such conditions.
>>25242641https://www.fidelitypress.org/book-products/living-machines
pseud circle jerk getting paid fat checks for over estimating slop
>>25242641the entire idea behind modern art is that there is no Meaning in the world, i.e. no God, no Absolute Truth. Artists try to convey this philosophical "truth" (or rather, the lack of any truth or meaning) by making artwork that has no meaning. An artist can't draw something that resembles real life, because real life visually has meaning (example: an apple tree has meaning, it gives food, shade, wood, etc.). To draw an apple tree would thus be mimicking meaning. So instead the nihilistic artist will paint something completely meaningless (because they're trying to convey their philosophical ideal visually, and their philosophy is one that believes there is no meaning in the world, no God). This is the core reason why art changed so drastically within the last hundred years or so, it parallels the abandoning of belief in absolute truth/God and the new adherence to science (which the hardcore materialists say is just accidental, meaningless chaos, atoms and quarks etc.)
>>25242641>How the fuck did we get to this point?I worked in the art industry for a few years, not as an artist. It's gotten to this point because art is a magical object that doesn't depreciate in value and is worth whatever the fuck it's sold for, it's the perfect means for money laundering and tax free investments for rich people. I've been to many wealthy people's investment properties that they never have once spent a whole day at that is completely filled floor to ceiling with art that costs millions a piece. Situations like this have nothing to do with creativity and appreciation of craft, it's just about wealth.On top of that, an overwhelming majority of the artists that end up in museums and on these people's walls have inside connections. Breaking into this world just because your art is actually good is very unlikely, and there is actually no way to objectively determine if your art is good so this is convenient.If you want to find good art, avoid the big institutions and look for smaller DIY galleries, people who are doing it for the love of the game. Although that world too is often filled with people who have generational wealth and can spend their time painting after art school instead of going to work. Is what it is though
>>25242696This is a great summary.
greek statueoid 95 IQ christindian thread
>>25242649dumb paki bot
Contemporary deliberately looks random. It actually isn't. Inkblots are. Our mind makes sense of randomness. Contemporary art deliberately avoids actual randomness in favor of cultivated randomness, which is very difficult: you have to make something that has no obvious structure or interpretation but still has an important structure based on avoiding a subliminal meaning.The goal is to force the viewer to participate in the art, so that the artist is not just inseminating their idea into the viewer's brain. The viewer engages in the creative process and completes the art.
The rich people who commissioned amazing art realized you can embezzle or otherwise scam money by buying low-effort garbage and estimating it at X amount of dollars. The quicker the art is produced the more you may do this, making you wealthier.
>>25242696The worst thing ever done to western society was anchoring complex subjects like "the divine in the world" with the Abrahamic faggot YHWH and that retard Jesus.
>>25242641By "paragraph of vague buzzwords" I'm assuming you mean things like "artist's statements"? I have always hated artist's statements, first because very few people in the fine arts can construct a sentence, let alone arrange several of them into a paragraph; but more so because they ruin the experience of engaging with the art. The artist prefaces his work by telling you what it's about and what to think and feel when you are exposed to it. They spoil the joke by explaining the punchline, so to speak.I know that's not a book recommendation, but your post triggered a large release of venom from me and I had nowhere else to go with it.
>>25242706Go jerk off to Jackson Pollock
>>25242715People like you are why I consider leaving this trash heap behind
>>25242720>t. art "connoisseur" who has never read a single book on art let alone art that is too hard for him
consciousness is motion. if it is not motion it is passivity, ASMR videos, sissy hypno, opioid oblivion, death. art is consciousness moving through cultural history. modern art was a huge leap forward, for a few decades it soared above the earth, but then it hit a wall, it had nowhere to go because the civilisation it needed to land in didn't emerge. the question is whether civilisation can get beyond the wall. the question is not how to gild the wrecked corpse of art and put it back on a classical pedestal.
>>25242723Christkike PLEASE leave this fucking board, it would improve tremendously if you went back to /pol/ or /x/, whatever board is most responsible as a pipeline for your low intellect input.
>>25242730AI is the future sir
>>25242723->regularly visiting a pornographic website :You are a bad Christian. You rabbi prophet would spit in your face if he was alive.
>>25242736true, and it's death
>>25242714NFTs before NFTs
>>25242641I assume you also mean modern art?Tom Wolfe - The Painted Worldnotes - >Modern Art has become completely literary: the paintings and other works exist only to illustrate the text. The idea was that half the power of a realistic painting comes not from the artist but from the sentiments the viewer hauls along to it...fame, money, and beautiful lovers...he, like his mate the artist, is separate from and aloof from the bourgeoisie, the middle classes ... the feeling that he may be from the middle class but he is no longer in it ... the feeling that he is a fellow soldier, or at least an aide-de-camp or an honorary cong guerrilla in the vanguard march through the land of the philistines...>That is why collectors today not only seek out the company of, but also want to hang out amidst, lollygag around with, and enter into the milieu of ... the artists they patronize..."All profoundly original work looks ugly at first," should have realized that in an age of avant-gardism no critic can stop a new style by meeting it head-on. To be against what is new is not to be modern...Castelli had Johns, Lichtenstein, Warhol, Robert Rauschenberg, James Rosenquist, most of the heavies. It was there that the Culture buds now hung out, beautiful little girls, with their hips cocked and the seams of their Jax slax cleaving them into hemispheres while they shot Culture pouts through their Little Egypt eyes. God knows, the Pop artists themselves entered into the spirit of the thing. Whereas the Abstract Expressionists had so many disastrous problems double-tracking from the Boho Dance to the Consummation-whereas Pollock, Newman, Rothko, the whole push, in fact, had their own early antibourgeois boho ideals hovering over them forevermore like the most vengeful and vigilant superego in the history of psychology-the Pop artists double-tracked with about as much moral agony as a tape recorder...Modern Art always "projects itself into a twilight zone where no values are fixed," he said. "It is always born in anxiety." Not only that, he said, it is the very function of really valuable new Modern Art to "transmit this anxiety to the spectator," so that when he looks at it, he is thrown into "a genuine existential predicament." Maybe leans a bit to much on psychologizing with a touch of envy, but I think he does a good job explicating modern art for someone who hates it as much as he does.
>>25242737Jesus regularly visited with prostitutes
>>25242749To heal, feed and validate them, not to jerk off to their girl cocks
>>25242757Same thing bro
>>25242641Artist and art historian here. Allow me to briefly summarize:Art stopped being about mimetic representation of reality with the rise of photography in the mid-late 19th C. Now, the artist was free to explore their medium without the need to slavishly replicate natural forms. This is what gave us impressionism, etc. Starting in the early 1900s, with the wave of technological and social changes brought about by incipient modernity, you have the rise of artists starting to question the art object itself. These artists, like Duchamp, Picabia, the Dadaists, were classically trained, and very talented at painting churches and country scenes and shit, but were inspired to make a radical break with that tradition and explore new conceptual forms, like Duchamp's nude descending a staircase. (I personally find it hilarious when retards like >>25242696 claim we need to retvrn to mimetically representing reality, when that was the exact argument used 100+ years ago by outraged bourgeois Parisians seeing Duchamp's crazy shit for the first time). These early modernists were an avant-garde in the true sense, much like the Italian Arditi in WW1. Blazing a new path forward and using new technologies combined with imagination and courage to create new ways of seeing.This tradition crystallized in the post-WW1 era into what we now know as high modernism. Dali, Henry Moore, the Surrealists. This is a high point in art history in my view because you have a very high level of technical material skill in painting, bronzework, etc., combined with an experimental sensibility that rejected traditional notions of representation. Uneducated pleb-anons, once again, will likely fall back to age-old complaints about how muh art needs to accurately represent muh reality, but in fact, the artists of the high modernist period were making new forms of reality through material and formal experimentation. This was not necessarily a leftist or liberal project at all; in fact, the Italian Futurists, one of the first avant-garde art movements of the 20th C, led directly to Mussolini. On the other hand, early Soviet art was very avant-garde as well (see Russian Constructivism), before the party got taken over by Stalin and returned to the same kind of boring socialist-realism that mirrors the Nazi pastoral national-socialist-realism advanced by Hitler. (Hitler was a brilliantly forward-looking architectural modernist but his painting tastes was painfully dull and provincial in my view). After WW2 is where it starts to really fall apart. Obviously the West triumphs under its new ((masters)). Unlike the earlier forms of avant garde modernism, where material and textual innovation was combined with a strong technical sensibility, we now start to see the rejection of technique and the rejection of beauty wholesale. This is where Jackson Pollock comes in (funded and advanced by the CIA in the postwar era).[1/2]
>>25242641There's a mexican writer called Avelina Lesper that wrote a book called The Fraud of Contemporary Art. I dunno if it's available in English, but she argues that shit like installation and objet trouve were pushed by galleries, auction houses and academia because they are easy to sell, to produce and to launder money with. When someone buys a Comedian by Cattelan they aren't buying the banana or the tape, they are buying a certificate that says that if they tap a banana to a wall they are entitled to calling it Comedian and that it would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.Notice how the conceptual trend also exists in music, theatre, film and literature. But they hardly ever make to the news because no matter how hard they push them with an academic essay on why is good and why you are bad if you don't like it companies will hardly earn the same amount of money from ticket sales to conceptual play or symphony as selling certificates.Another thing that helps it is interpretation. Academia and critics favour message and meaning over style, conceptual art being the epitome of such thing. You can read about it in Against interpretation by the jewess Susan Sontag, who stole her ideas from Alain Robb-Grillet.
>>25242749so he was a John?
>>25242784So now we've gone from the formal innovation meets technical precision of the high modernist period into the postwar, CIA funded, abstract expressionist period, which is all about slapping paint on canvas. Some artists do this better than others, but it's the general trend that defines the era. It's followed by, in the 60s, Minimalism, and then in 1967, a groundbreaking essay by Michael ((Fried)) called "Art and Objecthood" rejects the art object entirely. This lays the framework for the "anything goes" era of Conceptualism. Art is now "liberated" from objecthood entirely and can be anything at all. Directions for an action, gestures, an empty gallery. Concept completely trumps form and materiality. This "conceptual turn" coincides with the massive financialization and professionalization of the art market. Price valuations start skyrocketing and art becomes a big business, brokered by powerful gallerists, curators and critics, with the artist reduced to a cog in a massive pyramid scheme that is increasingly used for money laundering etc. With both the artist's hand and the artist's intent decentered, the new regime of a conceptual, financialized artworld requires text over objects as the currency of the realm. This is essentially what >>25242801 is saying. It's gotten to the point where a banana taped to a wall sells for millions, whereas anything made by hand with technique and craftsmanship is looked down on as politically naive or worse, reactionary. Which is ironic considering who really benefits from this entire topsy-turvy setup.We are now in the late, moribund stage of post-conceptualism, a very sick and strange market world dominated by billionaires, art fairs and money laundering. Artists become speculative investments and tokens of trade within this circulatory system. Art itself is an afterthought.I don't think it will last much longer, considering all the old boomers are dying off, and Gen Z does not give a fuck about contemporary art. Shittification, slopification, and ((who)) benefits? A change is going to come, and I feel humans will eventually return to a more material centered, object forward way of making art, as we did for millenia before everything spiraled out of control in the latter half of the last century.Or maybe we'll all be hooked up to permanent AI VRchat worlds and constantly forcefed dopamine so that the human impulse to create beauty and innovation is forever quashed.
I dunno about books but I’m also interested. It is mindblowing the difference in quality between someone like, say, Sabrina Carpenter and even something as recent as The Strokes. Never mind older artists and much older composers. The fact that troons and s o y-lennials will try and gaslight you that it’s all subjective and that you’re just a crotchety old man (I’ve been feeling this way since my teens) is both hilarious and infuriating. But literally everything has been affected: books, music, vidya, you name it
>>25242784anyone who thinks Pollock and abstract expressionism lacks beauty needs new eyes
>>25242641The stuff in the OP pic is cool though>>25242829Comparing Sabrina Carpenter and The Strokes is nonsensical. You should really compare her to someone like Kesha, and The Strokes to Geese or something.
>>25242849I didn't say that it lacks beauty anon. I said that it was about slapping paint on canvas, in contrast to the previous generation's technical precision; and that it was supported by the CIA, which is historically true.There's plenty of beauty in AbEx; Clyfford Still, Helen Frankenthaler, Cy Twombly. I got to see Leda and the Swan last week in person and it's quite enrapturing. I just find Pollock to be the most facile and uninteresting of that cohort.
>>25242859Geese are much better than the Strokes though.
>>25242870they're both derivative and on the same level quality-wise
>>25242870Not a huge fan of either but I like The Strokes a bit more. My point is that when you consider musicians who are "competing in the same race," as it were, quality is much more even over time
>>25242829Yeah i agree with you but come on man, the strokes were one of the all around coolest, greatest rock bands ever. Not really an apt comparison.
>>25242865I fucking hate Cy Twombly so much. Generally I like "modern art," but his shit just sucks.
>>25242829Music (and cinema) are much more intertwined with technology than literature and visual art (painting and sculpture)Most of the developments in popular music in the 20th century were the direct result of new recording technology and now that you can make basically any sound imaginable with a laptop, music has stagnated
>>25242641Try The Dehumanization of Art by Ortega y Gasset.It explains how contemporary art removes, by design, all elements that could evoke any previous "human destiny" that you could relate to in what you're witnessing (feelings, sensations, ideas), so that an elite with "superior artistic sensibilities" can get aesthetic pleasure from understanding art and knowing that the social majority just doesn't get it, because the way common people understand art is by relating it to their "human destinies".Most interesting read. Basically, contemporary art is an abstract Pepe. You get it because you understand what it is depicting without depicting anything that could resemble a frog; yet you get it, appreciate it, and if shown to normies, they just will not make sense of it, and outrage is the most common reaction to something you don't understand but perceive others do due to a higher sensibility.
>>25242859I think it's a fair comparison since both are big label and commercial acts.I believe that music labels are adapting the South Korean model, in which music is made to be accessible, cheap and quickly disposable so that people move onto the next big thing more quickly.
>>25242885Well, that’s kinda mypoint. Sabrina nowadays is top of the top in terms of popularity. What became popular back then is not the same thing that did back then and my argument is that it was of higher quality even if just pop>>25242859I thought about that but I was gonna say someone like Britney Spears which is much, much more pleasing than Kesha. My point was more in terms what is deemed the popular “good” thing and using that as the same barometer most normies use for whether an artist is “good” or not
Read a good book instead of searching for things that agree with you, learn first, reach conclusions laterbabies first art history book should always be pic related, its the best entry pointthen go from there
>>25242897I know he's not for everyone, but I'd gently offer that you might change your mind after seeing the works in person, if you haven't already. (I did.)Say what you will about the man's, but his Roman apartment was PEAK interior decor kino.
>>25242784>>25242818>>25242935this. stupid art takes would mostly disappear if everyone got some proper history of art education
>>25242944I'm in Philly and those hideous scribbles, "however many nights at Illium," have their own permanent installation at the art museum. My hatred was created by seeing his stuff in person.>>25242932>>25242928The Strokes were never at the level of popularity that big-time pop stars have
>>25242932>Sabrina nowadays is top of the top in terms of popularityAccording to whom? The strokes at peak could honestly generate enough cool to power the entirety of NYC. People actually knew who they were.Carpenter is just another phony industry concoction propped up by fake streaming numbers, and certain number of dumb foids get swindled and actually show up to a concert.Madonna would be another example of this sort I guess.Nobody actually gives a rats ass about sabrina carpenter, even though I know, yes, there's a very expensive media campaign run to suggest otherwise.
>>25242977The Strokes at their peak sold a small fraction of the number of albums Nickelback sold
>>25242985The music industry has been fake and gay for 75+ years now. Probably 125+ if i bothered to look into it
>>25242985That's just a random example. The Strokes generated a lot of "buzz" but it's they weren't big like that, they weren't going multi-platinum. Sabrina Carpenter's last two albums went to number 1 in every major market around the world. It's ludicrous to say people don't know her or care about her. Anyway all I'm getting at is that it's not a good comparison to make. Though I will admit that the "mainstream" music industry is even less interested in letting a band like The Strokes break through than they were back then
>>25242784>>25242818Thanks for the thorough reply. Personally, I don't think I'm arguing for a return to mimesis or anything like that. My issue is exactly what you yourself point out happens after WW2; once you drop technique, beauty and material constraints and replace them with concept + text, you open the door to a lot of work that just feels arbitrary and underdeveloped.That earlier sweet spot you mention (Dali, Moore, the Surrealists) theoretically works because those artists actually had mastery and then pushed against it. What I see now is often just skipping that step entirely and going straight to vague conceptual gestures. So it's not "why isn't art realistic anymore", but "why is so much of it technically weak and propped up by vague philosophical explanation."The gap between the art world and the public has clearly widened. And sure, declining literacy in the arts doesn't help, but a lot of this stuff also just stopped being "ahead of its time" and became a closed loop talking to itself.
>>25242965>I'm in PhillyMy condolences.Worst place I've ever lived. Nine years away and I never intend to return.
>>25242990If that's the case then The Strokes are also fake and gay
>>25242999I actually really like it here and have no intention to leave until I'm old and retire to the country
>>25243000They probably were a little bit, see casablancas' father, but not on the scale of a big poop star
>>25242977> Carpenter is just another phony industry concoction propped up by fake streaming numbersYou and I know this, bro. The droves of NPC cattle don’t and you will see maaaaany women defending Sabrina to the ends of the earth, even if they don’t even particularly like her that much, funny enough.
>>25242996>Sabrina Carpenter's last two albums went to number 1 in every major market around the world. It's ludicrous to say people don't know her or care about her.I think you're not fully prepared to come to terms with the fact that these popularity numbers are literally made up. Even sales numbers, which you think is objective, can be manipulated by the millions with a little creative accounting. Streaming numbers are easy to drive with bot farms and honestly i bet at thisbpoint they just have internal agreeements with spotify, etc.
>>25242641>instead of actually mastering basic/classical techniques and aestheticsWhy would I care about someone's classical portraiture technique when my phone's camera can make a better portrait instantly? I don't see the value in making something a machine could make quicker and better.
>>25243024Do you really need explaining how a photograph and a painting aren't the same?
>>25243019>I think you're not fully prepared to come to terms with the fact that these popularity numbers are literally made upI want to believe this because it’d give me a bit of hope in terms of music taste across the world but do you have any proof for this? I understandstand it’s a bit of occam’s razor in that if they’re able to prop up literal AI artists (this actually happened), why couldn’t they prop up an actual “artist”? But at the same time, I’ve never seen proof of this. It would, however, explain why the retarded dying seal-sounding motherfucker named Bad Bunny reached the top across the world.
>>25243019But then why trust any of that shit when it comes to The Strokes? I get it, we are all 30 to 40 years old here and love reminiscing about the glory days but they just weren't that big, relatively speaking.>>25243009Oh you mean his Epstein-affiliated father? That's "just a little bit?"
>>25242641>mastering basic/classical techniques and aestheticsThis is what chuds don't understand about art. Art has never ever been about being technically good and it never will be. The point of art is to express your human emotion such that you may transmit that emotion to other people. What you are holding in high regard is DESIGN which is not art. For the record I don't like 90% of studio art because it's just faggots grifting to rich people laundering money. Most artists today work in movies and video games. That's why you don't see paintings of European buildings with proper perspective.
>>25243028https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r7l0Rq9E8MYThere's several billion reasons why nobody will ever squeal thoroughly enough to satisfy your (or anyone's, really, or my) evidential criteria
Art in Crisis - Hans Sedlmayr The Shock of the New - Robert Hughes. Especially Chapter 4 "Trouble in Paradise" and Chapter 8 "The Future that Was." The Shock of the New accompanied the television documentary series of the same name that you can find on YouTube. >We finish where modernism began, at the foot of the Eiffel Tower. Perhaps the etiquette now demands that I should try and prognosticate about what is coming next. Well, I won't, because I don't know. History teaches us a certain thing, that critics, when they fish out the crystal ball and guess what the future will be, are almost invariably wrong. I don't think there's been such a rush towards insignificance in the name of the historic or future as we've seen in the last 15 years. The famous radicalism of '60s and '70s art turns out to have been a kind of dumb show, a charade of toughness, a way of avoiding feeling. I don't think we are ever again obliged to look at a plywood box or a row of bricks or a videotape of some twit from the University of Central Paranoia sticking pins in himself and think, "This is the real thing. "This is the necessary art of our time. This needs respect." Because it isn't, and it doesn't. And nobody cares.
>>25243037You're already starting from the retarded assumption that I'm a "chud" who thinks exactly like whatever caricature you've got in your head. Anyway, that's not what I meant.I'm not saying art is just technical skill or that everything should be classical. The point is you can't meaningfully break or rethink form if you never understood it in the first place. For example, a lot of the earlier modernists people point to actually had that foundation and then pushed against it. But when that step gets skipped, you don't get "pure expression", you get underdeveloped art which is then explained after the fact.And the claim that art has never been about technique is just wrong. It was never the only thing, but it's always been part of it.
>>25243035>But then why trust any of that shit when it comes to The Strokes?Because I trust myself. And to an extent it's because they never got "that" big that you can tell they were organic, in that that's about as big as you can actually get.I've talked to a lot of people who love music, literally everybody's heard of the strokes, everybody likes them, and that's just not the case with carpenter or any of these other industry plants.I'm just not willing to disbelieve my personal experience for fake and gay numbers.
>>25243027Obviously they're different things, but why would I care about the painting if it does exactly what a photograph does, but worse? >because you just should okay!!! it was made by a person so... you should!!!isn't an argument. The photograph was made by a person too.
>>25243053It's not only "people who love music" who listen to and buy music you know. If we're talking "lived experience," I was considered a hipster for even knowing about them until I was in college. And even then, it's not what you would hear at parties, out in the world, etc.
>>25243049"Underdeveloped" is a subjective idea that you're asserting on what art is. You don't need any education to express yourself. It just makes it easier because you have been practicing letting that expression out. >And the claim that art has never been about technique is just wrong.what I'm saying is that the absolute core of art has nothing to do with technique. Do you consider ancient cave painting art? They didn't go to art school. They didn't refine techniques and read art books. They just expressed something that they wanted other people to see.
>>25243075Pure expressionism is a retarded meme. Any art, from cave paintings to Duchamp, requires, and has always required, deep material manipulation and technical achievement. It's the synthesis of those skills with emotional, intellectual and spiritual expression that makes art, Art.By the way, look at this. Microscopic carved detail in a tiny agate, Minoan, a thousand-odd years before Homer, made with bronze tools. An obsessive insistence on both technical and expressive achievement... Art.
>>25243104Yes those things are all very nice but you simply don't need to have deep material manipulation and technical achievement to create something that qualifies as art. You mom singing you a lullaby when you were a baby still qualifies as music which still qualifies as art. In fact I would say a mother's song to her child is way better art than multimillion pop slop productions which utilize people with far superior ability to produce and manipulate sound simply because of the expression. Technical ability is a spook. I think a better explanation is because what is being expressed is garbage.
>>25243133>a mother's song to her child is artwhat a moronic take
>>25243163sorry you didn't have a good relationship with your mother
>>25242641>adornoAdorno
>>25242818>n 1967, a groundbreaking essay by Michael ((Fried)) called "Art and Objecthood" rejects the art object entirely. This lays the framework for the "anything goes" era of Conceptualism.This is a complete misunderstanding of Fried's essay.First off Fried's essay is speaking specifically about what we now call Minimalism. The essay is specifically a critique of Minimalism, which did not reject the art object whatsoever. His critique is over minimalism's theatricality and what eh described as turning the gallery into a stage or theater. It didn't lay the groundwork for conceptualism, if anything Fried outright rejected it. Fried if anything was reactionary against modern art's "progress."I'm not going to get into everything else you have either wrong or misleadingly laid out but that is one error of many. The whole CIA thing is overblown. Go read the book, the abex thing literally one chapter of an entire book and basically Europeans loved NY art and so yeah the US funded traveling exhibitions. Guess what, every country does this.
>>25242641You obviously don't actually pay attention to contemporary art because currently Contemporary art is more filled than ever with representational and technically skilled artists. There's been a whole surrealism resurgence and figurative painting comeback. You're mad at somethign you don't even pay attention to.
It’s sad how far off the mark all of you anons are. If you really want to trace the point where we were waylaid you need to go back to the 15th century, when certain rationalist currents which had been sealed away since antiquity infected the Italian intellectual milieu. This engendered the cult of genius that stretches from Michelangelo to Dali, and which metastasized into the cult of the self that is evident in faggy contemporary artists today. Everything went downhill after the artist went from an anonymous craftsman to a celebrity, but it took several centuries for the full-extent of the rot to be obvious for the common man (who even now lacks the intellectual background to address the problem).
>>25242784>. (I personally find it hilarious when retards like >>25242696 # claim we need to retvrn to mimetically representing reality, when that was the exact argument used 100+ years ago by outraged bourgeois Parisians seeing Duchamp's crazy shit for the first time).The difference between him and you is that he is right and you are wrong.>but look, I cited a Scandinavian art exhibit and bronze potteryNo one cares. Good art is mimetic and the best art is religious and inspired by the divine and contemplating on the divine.
>>25243438This a good post. Look at the Cathedral of Florence. Random artists are ABOVE the Blessed Apostles.
>>25243133>Technical ability is a spookWrong. Words have meaning(s).
>>25242735>>25242737Repent, dogs.
>>25242641It's really important to consider that some people HATE beauty. They view it as an onerous responsibility. It demands that they be not neglectful. It demands that they take care of it. It reminds them of their own inadequacy, either in lacking talent, drive, or grace, and so they want it gone and destroyed. Contemporary art is an attempt to visualize a bunch of people that might as well be evolved "monkeys" trying to throw off the moral law and show that art is whatever we say it is. They are wrong. Their beliefs are disgusting and their filth will be burned with glee and the descendants will shudder at how much their ancestors wasted on their incestuous inside art jokes. Why do they hate beauty? Because they are ugly.
>>25242735/pol/ hates Christianity, though.But anything that makes people seethe this much, though, is fine by me. Sandnigger religions that blow up infidels and cuts women’s clits off gets less seething than a bum saying “love each other.” Can’t make that shit up
>>25242715>implying God and Jesus are simple subjects You’re one of those “philosophy is just… le thinking XD” faggots, aren’t you?
>>25242784>>25242818Art historians regularly make this kind of argument but I find it very lacking. Yes Duchamp etc. wanted to do bold experimental things but it's still fucking ugly and sterile. It doesn't speak to the collective soul. It's experimentation for the sake of experimentation, but experimentation is supposed to just be a practice step before a reintegration into a new form that does express the collective spirit. People can't relate to dada or surrealism, it's a failure of art because it totally lacks that reintegration and harmony with the collective, with the past, and with nature. Modern art is driven by an intellectual urge and environment, and not spiritual or cultural ones. Titian or Friedrich or Dicksee were emblematic of their eras and of their cultures, but Moore and Duchamp are not. That role has been taken up by popular music like The Beatles or popular films like Star Wars.
>>25243870christianity IS a sandnigger religion retard
>>25242681HMMMMMMMMMM I’m nooticing
>>25243931Context clues, mongoloid. Who are the sandniggers who blow up trains and gang rape children in Europe? Are you baiting or just that retarded?
>>25242641lol what is 'le classical aesthetics" hmmm?
>>25242681wolfe is trash.big difference between a clement and a leo and none of these people is anti-visual, nor anti-perception, except kinda Andy, not because hes against anything other being against things
>>25244000And look into which charities help import them you fucking spastic
>>25242641Stupid. They went through whatever the fuck writing is going to go through with chatbots when photography was invented and images became infinitely reproduceable. It makes no sense for you to learn technique - to what end? A machine can make a photorealistic portrait in a second. The point of modern art is to re-state the value of the human by making art about ideas rather than technique. A machine can develop technique, but it cannot have ideas. The point of these art-pieces is to be new and to be something you have not seen before. You're supposed to get an aesthetic experience from their being put in front of you as novelties, unseen objects, re-purposed and generally weird things that contain an aesthetic idea - but the art object is not the physical artifact in front of you, but the idea behind its realization. The physical artifact is just the emerged part signaling the presence of the idea, which is the actual piece of art. If you don't play the game and don't try to engage with the idea because the object doesn't contain pretty angels with greek proportions, you are failing not only to decipher art but to inhabit this and the past century. You do not know history and the necessities that drove art to this point, and you're falling for anti-cultural propaganda that wants you to believe art is only pretty-looking stuff so they can keep de-funding museums and contemporary art programs. For sure not everything is up to standard, but your critique is entirely superficial and ignorant. >how the fuck did we get to this point?Get an art history manual and study the last century. The answer to your question is clear to whoever engaged with the subject seriously beyond wikipedia level. Go fucking study.
The vast majority of contemporary art isn't the outdated postmodern shit you guys cry about
>>25243075You're conflating two different things. Yes, anyone can express themselves, and that can still be art. That's not the point."Underdeveloped" isn't just me randomly asserting something, but about whether a work actually does anything with form, structure, material, composition, etc., or just gestures at an idea and relies on explanation to carry it. That's not purely subjective in the sense of "anything goes", there's a high degree of intersubjectivity in how people recognize when something is resolved, coherent or just thin.And the cave painting example doesn't really work. Those works still show intentionality, structure, repetition, stylization... they're not just random marks. They had their own internal logic and constraints.So yeah, technique isn't the only thing, but acting like it's irrelevant or that all expression is equal is just retarded.
>>25244164Nobody apart from the first reply (a troll) used the word "postmodern".
>>25243056Paintings don't do "exactly what a photograph does". All you're saying is dishonest horseshit and arguing in bad faith, that much is clear. Evidently you DO need explaining how a photograph and a painting aren't the same.
>>25244161Good bait
>>25243164Nta but nice ad hominem. We're talking about art, though.
>>25242641You're right, OP. Despite getting some serious replies, you did, in fact, piss some people off.
>>25242865it was 'supported" by the CIA. the cia funded some offfshore exhibitions to try to demonstrate tp the world the the us wasnt some cultural fucking shithole.fuck your stupid cheap shit fake narrative.
>>25242897cy is beautiful and clever. his secret, amongst his secrets, is the pure energy of the hand. another secret, amongst his secrets, is taking the notions of the prelimnary, architectural, layout 'sketch' and transform it into the work itself. Treatise on the Veil is special work. his untitled green paintigs series is so lovingly on the verge of representation and in a joyful dialogue with monet.... he has so many phases, all imbued with the singular energy of his hand
>>25244283oopsit wasnt... etc etc
>>25244288You are wrong and your sense of beauty is broken or you're a troll. I only read the first two sentences of your post to be merciful to myself.>>25244141It's cute watching anti-Christs pretend to have morals. Why is raping kids bad? Because your favorite tree said not to? Give me a break.
>>25244164I look forward to more citations and less cussing in your future posts.
>>25244595except im not wrong and your are a sad conservative luddite pining for a world that never existed.also u got no rizz
>>25244618>conservative luddite pining for a world that never existed.Every Catholic Cathedral in every European city is the most beautiful building in that city. Why? Fairy dust? Lies? Cy is trash. His paintings would be an insult to fire to even burn let alone to hang in your home.
>>25242818>permanent AIIts over.
>>25244195But that is what people are upset about, isn't it? Modernist and postmodern movements in art
>>25242784>Art stopped being about mimetic representation of reality with the rise of photography in the mid-late 19th C. Now, the artist was free to explore their medium without the need to slavishly replicate natural forms.Impressionism wasn't a reaction to photography and artistic photography from inception up into the 1930s was overwhelmingly pictorialist and abstract. Ansel Adams and other American photographers were the avant garde of their time by claiming that photography should faithfully capture reality. Also your argument completely falls apart when it comes to sculpture. Classical sculpture is a better mimetic representation of reality than photography can even be - it's a 3D object in space. You can't turn a negative around and see the other side of a tomato. And sculpture abandoned strict "Classical" realism at the dawn of the 20th century with New Sculpture, which was more 'real,' textured and emotive, with bodies that appear frozen in action rather than posing heroically, than the Classicalist Sculpture that proceeded it.The idea that photography made realism redundant just isn't borne out. You can only really believe it if you don't know anything about the history of photography, which is sadly common among people who study capital A "Art."
>>25244720>Impressionism wasn't a reaction to photography and artistic photography from inception up into the 1930s was overwhelmingly pictorialist and abstract.I'm skeptical of this claim. I think it likely was.
>>25244761This was as close as photography got to art in the 1860s when Impressionism really started, while portrait shoots were developing into something with more artistic, for most part cameras were used to record and never had the same function as fine art painting.Impressionism is really a reaction to, or rather, young artists setting out to break from the "Realism" of the French arts academies. Compare Charles Gleyre with his pupils.
>>25242641Its an ad you idiot. artist statements and backgrounds about the artist are ads for the art. Your selling to rich yuppies, you tell the rich yuppie stories.
Shock of the New
>>25242641The Art Renewal Center lecture on Bougereau.
>>25242714I always wanted to rape a modern art curator by sticking my willy in their bum bum.
>>25242724I'll show you something that's hard
>>25242926sounds bizarre but since I'm a Gasset fan I'll check it out
>>25245737dog what? Realism was the movement breaking away from the french Academy. It literally consisted of the people who would be forebear to the impressionists like Courbet, Lepage, Manet. They painted workers and daily life while the academy wanted exoticism and grand history paintings.
>>25245737Photography didn't need to be artistic. It took over as recorder. Thus allowing painting to lose its place as recorder and become free to its "artistic" ends.
>>25242926lol its written in 1925. Oh no, people are focusing on form and color.
>>25244648why?BECAUSE ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTS AND MASONSwhich have more in common with twombly than a daft cunt liike you could knowin fact many of twombly's paintings are practically architectural sketches
>>25244761the first half is likely incorrect, and in other ways the second half is also likely incorrect.the impressionists were clearly in love with vision and what they saw they painted. if anything, they are a reaction to banal salon paintings. photography had an early phase in which it copied the mimetic in painting (as that was considered 'art'). so yes was highly pictorialist, but in no way abstract.
>>25245845based diebenkorn poster haunting gagosian gallery pages
>>25244200>desperately claims ad hominem after he does it himselfembarrassing
>>25246012>the impressionists were clearly in love with vision and what they saw they painted.Yes and no. You don't see blurry things like Cezanne and vision isn't pointilism. It's possibly even, at root and in the most cynical reading, that impressionism a satire on the human eye in defense of photography.>>25246007>BECAUSE ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTS AND MASONSIs this a serious analysis or you conceding utter defeat? They're beautiful because Catholicism is beautiful and the Church is too. I'm sorry your country is ran by heretical monarchs that betrayed God.>>25245737Fine painting responding to the existence of photography and photography becoming art aren't the same. Why aren't photos, or electronic videos, used as part of the liturgy? This defines art.
>>25246081well actually older people and people with glasses do see blurry things - but your misunderstanding of painting is so insipid as to be almost inspiring.and pointilism was, by its makers, understood to be a very 'scientific' approach to understanding vision. and yes, the impressionists loved vision and painted what excited them. they are the eruption of space and light into art like no others.and no, the churches arent beautiful because of Cucklicks. its because the architects loved ancient rome, and they loved the language of the wall, the arch, space and volume, and geometry. Not becuase jesus, cunt.i have no doubt that somewhere there is a church which has phtographs and video as part of its practice. you likely just need to look harder and more honestly.
>>25246105>and pointilism was, by its makers, understood to be a very 'scientific' approach to understanding vision. and yes, the impressionists loved vision and painted what excited them. they are the eruption of space and light into art like no others.You realize that people aren't reliable narrators unless? It doesn't necessarily what an artist says about his work as much as what his work reveals.>i have no doubt that somewhere there is a church which has phtographs and video as part of its practice. you likely just need to look harder and more honestly.For example: You think that a single empiracle exception "disproves" a normative point. This is incorrect. What's your analysis of painting?>its because the architects loved ancient rome, and they loved the language of the wall, the arch, space and volume, and geometry.It's because painters loved Greece and the language of plaster, the curve, perspective, and geometry? This is a satire of itself because your hatred of Christ and His Church makes you a satire of reality. It's why your understanding of yourself is irrelevant but your behavior is hyper-relevant. You're a ghost with symptoms who cannot know it's sick.
I'm reading this thread and thinking about that /lit/ screencap I saw floating around that talked about people who still get oneshotted by modernism a hundred years later.
>>25246121the history of pointillism is settled fact. deal with it.as to the rest, LOL.
>>25242654HURRRR WHAT IF I TOOK A BELL PEPPER AND SHOVED IN IN MY DOG'S EAR!!!??? NOW THATS A PERFORMANCE ART THATS NEVER BEEN DUN BEFORE IM ARTING EVERYONE LOOK AT ME IM ARTING IM A CREATIVE EINSTEIN THATLL BE 11 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE PIECE THANKSSSSS
>>25246209hmm. a very amateur and obvious reference to van gogh and you didnt even tape it to the wall.No 11 millions dollars for you.
>>25246030>after he does it himselfWhere?
