)))BOOMERS((( BRAINWASHED BILLIONS TO SEE THIS MESS AS PEAK CULTURE SO THEY COULD USE IT AS A MONEY LAUNDERING FRONT AND A GET RICH QUICK SCHEMEDID YOU FALL FOR THE )))MODERN ART((( GRIFT?
why you mad poorfag
>>534757547Looks like scrambled porn from the '90s.
>>534757547zoomers dont know how to see dolphins here
>>534757719Yeah but it was painted by *big name* so it's worth money. Because not just any ape can randomly throw paint at a canvas.I think all entertainment is a form of money laundering.>be me 80s film>cost 9 billion to makeYeah, sure it did...
>>534757614WHY ARE )))THEY((( LIKE THIS?
>>534756787It was also anti-communism, which pushed socialist realism at the time.
>>534757864Ding ding, you win.
>>534756787I like comic book art.
>>534756787it's a market jews created. like derivatives. autismos like patterns. i do. if you have a wall to decorate and cash that needs laundering, why not. pollock did some better messes though. happier kinda. superhyped contemporaries aren't much different. it's not about falling for it. either join the game or don't. it's investment and decoration. no need to 'see' anything 'artful' in this. wouldn't mind a bridget riley piece. can't afford it. i do have other stuff from that period.
>>534756787it was a CIA psyop that turned into a jewish money laundering scheme.https://www.openculture.com/2023/10/how-the-cia-secretly-used-jackson-pollock-other-abstract-expressionists-to-fight-the-cold-war.html
>>534761166the whole jewish art scene is like this though. remember julian schnabl? keith haring? warhol and his negro pet? the german 'expressionists'. they just can't into beauty. and they love to circlejerk about their clever symbolisms. thank god it's a closed system mostly. some stuff can be acceptable, like the chicago kapoor cloud gate maybe. now we're getting giant nigger statues in the middle of our most beautiful cities. well well well.
>>534761580jews just hate beauty
>>534761166>>534761580>>534760938stop with antisemitism
>>534756787you're an absolute buffoon. pollock himself was painting if you'd look at them. most other drip artists are what you say and so are most artists, but pollock isn't the example to lead by. if you'd look at them he was schizo painting scenes like a genius.
>>534762939stop being an illiterate memeflag kikejeet
>>534760938I like his ex, Isa Gensken, more than Gerhard Richter. He’s a cold strategist; she produces a kind of hyper-nonsense.
>>534756787modern art is money laundering and pretentious fags pretending to be deep to fit in with the rest of the pretentious people.The only art that holds any value is the art you actually like and its value is relative to what you would pay for it, not anyone else.
>>534761580The artist who created the black statues felt discriminated against by white culture. Well, we had Schlingensief, who wanted to build an opera house in Africa.
>>534756787Yes, it's fake, but there is not gain for them.It's just a last person holds the bag game they play with each other.
>>534756787Modern art is mostly trash, but there are a few exceptions like Francis Bacon and Paul Gauguint. art fag
>>534765013sure, some stuff can be liked. it's subjective. i go to art school diploma exhibitions and galleries. always some pieces that are okish. it's the parasitic system that isn't ok. starts with art schools, that offer comfy daycare jobs for former (((artists))) turned prof, basically admit jews only and mystery meat from far away, continues with galleries and auction houses, that do the money laundry part and exploit the artists. ends with tax funding of lesser artists via official commissioning and direct sponsoring of agenda artists via (((patronage))). nepotism everywhere and provocative degenerative shite that is hyped upon the 'yeah, i get it' crowd. i bought a few things when i could afford it. not really worth the 'investment', unless you are part of the system. or like the works for their decorative value.
>>534765813holding the bag isn't final. i sold stuff at auctions that inreased it's worth (to someone) in fiat 100 fold over 20-30 years. i lend works to mixed and themed exhibitions and all of those have received generous money offers, that i declined. money just isn't decorative.
>>534756787Hey it's this thread again. Do you want to skip to the part where you like [thing] that looks [nice] because you are using it as a place holder for [taste] in a subject you dont understand, or do I need to do the whole song and dance?
>>534766372We need a renaissance.
>>534767410soon anon, soon.
>>534768024I will never admire artwork of a dude having a personal shitfit
>>534768225you're taking things too seriously. you couldn't find a breker anyway, nor afford it if you did. as said earlier, it's subjective. connecting the output of an artist to his personality or history is, i dunno. pointless. unless you want to sponsor one. cause you like them as a person.
>>534768454I sponsor young artists by putting my penis in them
>>534768513that i understand. absolutely.
>>534768024First and foremost, we need to return to the study of nature from a technical perspective, but we also need the courage to engage with content that goes beyond the individual artist’s secret language.
>>534768905>the study of nature from a technical perspectivesorry mein brüder, photography ended that as a concern
>>534768905well, they do nature study. it's a prerequisite for admission. or so they say. i'm fairly old and i've noticed how not only shitty artists of the 80 are now handsomely paid profs, but also how their former fuckbuddies' kid are admitted to art school by those. it's meh. fekkin kikes, all of em. your example reminds me of picrel.
>>534768225That's my favorite.>>534768905No, not really. What we need is to have a seperate category for trust fund nepotism using art as a proxy to indulge in the process. Technical aspects of nature are much more common than the stylistic aspects of nature being transfered to another medium, but most people's big gripe about "art" is that they dont get postmodern art, and curators do a terrible job pruning piss christ from bacon.
>>534769200Mein negro. Love me some Dix.
I really like the Hudson River school. Wish I could afford a Heade or a Church or a Gifford.
>>534769198You're way off the mark. I'm currently studying Michelangelo and his powerful figures—which serve as accumulations of vital reflections—in the Sistine Chapel; that goes far beyond photography. Bodies copied from photographs are really tiresome, too.
>>534769198that's not true. art schools require extensive nature study, done prior to admission. they'll do anatomy at school but then they leave students to it. if you ever encounter a bunch of em you'll notice what spoilt and entitled brats they are in general. there's a short name for it, but i'd repeat myself.
tell me a form of artistic endeavor they haven't already ruined. do they do it out of envy? is it a conquering strategy?https://rumble.com/v75gmgu-narrative-shifting-atrocity-exhibition-no.1.html?e9s=src_v1_cbl%2Csrc_v1_ucp_v
>>534769200Yes, that example was also inspired by Dix, combined with a meme. Dix gave World War I a face. That was the defining act of responsibility of his time—to rub salt into the wound of a rotten society with its hypocritical institutions. But it’s a fine line; one must not become defeatist. Unfortunately, art professors at universities are often not true educators but tend to exploit students. One can only rely on oneself and the masters of the past.
>>534769389Your argument sounds like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. It is precisely the instrumentalization and institutionalization of art—in whatever form—that has caused it to degenerate. The artwork is an autopoietic aesthetic artifact, completed by the viewer, that exists beyond the mundane and, through the systemically intertwined arrangement of its elements, is capable of generating an epiphany about existence.
>>534760938This is commodore64 tape loading TMNT 2.
>>534770270i don't like all that 'message' stuff. it's npc virtue signalling and rather ugly. picrel is a much hyped recent discovery that i like for the innovative approach. but i'm a pattern lover first, which is why op art least offends me.
>>534770810kek. could be a broken phone screen, too. it's pretty hard to make this though, especially at the scale richter uses. i like his early stuff more.
>>534770832Signaling virtue would amount to agitation or propaganda; analyzing wounds, painting pictures of society, and developing narrative systems represent a potential that remains virtually untapped. Moreover, there is always that unbridgeable gap between the work itself and the attribution of meaning. Your image is quite indifferent and technically uninteresting; I bet the artist can’t really say much about his work, since he moves within associative bubbles.
>>534756787You are free to not consume it tho, why are you kvetching
>>534756787Let's see your art OP
>>534771371well, it's a she and you'd probably need to see the works before judging. you are following the jewish definition of 'contemporary', which is supposed to deal with current issues and be provocative about it. idgaf. i like decorative. oh, and i don't like your examples either.
