)))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.
>>534769845>>534770270INTERESTING HOW THERE SEEMS TO BE A FIXATION ON JUXTAPOSING SATANIC DEBAUCHERY WITH CHRISTIAN SYMBOLISM AND THE CHURCH BUT NEVER ANY OTHER RELIGIONS... REALLY GETS THE NOGGIN' JOGGIN'
>>534770663You're about reconsilation and meaning, which is a valid place, but I'm an absurdist (read: nihilist but pleasant) and I think manufacturing meaning is impossible because of the subjective flux as the individual experiences or comments about it. Was it "means", who the artist "is", or what the piece "represents" are kind of gauche in my vibe, but I'm a big fan of the postmodern invocation. It's this ineffable sort of emotional transmutation where the viewer feels something and needs to unpack the what and the why themselves. Like Roko. I agree about the institutionalization, but that's moreso the symptom of entropy across all academia than art specifically. What I'd want out of the insitution is more boundary pushing, not shock schlock for gasps, but to hone in on unique voices before they become jaded and to guide them stylistically into something new based on similiar contemporaries. Anyone can find quality representation; that's romantic art. Anyone can make a painting have a thought; that's modernism. But making someone feel something they've never experienced is the prestige, and making someone feel something they never experienced, never could experience, but already think they have is the next level.
>>534757547WHEN, LORD?! WHEN DO I GET TO SEE THE SAILBOAT?!
>>534758851based fellow comic art enjoyer
>>534772330kek. you need to squint ever so slightly. maybe a spliff would help.
boomers were like ten when Jackson Pollock was making his shit paintings
pic very related
>>534772493some good stuff there
>>534756787"Modern Art" was nothing but a (bad) joke in the art circuit until the CIA started pumping it with money and influence to counter Soviet Realism. That's how absolute shit like the Rothkos of the world came to be anything but worthless crap.
>>534771697q.e.d., the text is in an associative context with the image. You are mixing things very inaccurately here, because contemporary is the opposite of narration. Contemporary art is either associative, virtue signaling, or conceptual nonsense. There is a lack of a coupling of content and aesthetic product capable of complex narration.
>>534772764
>>534772686I think nowadays Kirby's art is an acquired taste. I think I may have not always been keen on it, but I really love his stuff now.Hmm... maybe I should save this pic for an Iran thread. (If you know you know.)
>>534772615It cracks me up how poetic it is. Because the dragon guy is sucking his own dick making this crap feeling superior to his colleagues
>>534757547There's 3 dolphins btw>>534772615Kek, which one of you did this? That's a shitpost irl
>>534772887For example, that's an excellent photo, and it's going to go in my inspiration folder!
https://vocaroo.com/1id0rOfTBA1yhere's some of your "real art"
>>534756787Pollock has always been a hack and everyone with a modicum of basic thinking knows modern art is money laundering
>>534772982It is better. Just because some leftist people think a simple painting of the Polish flag is million dollar art, that doesn't mean you know about good artwork.
>>534771982That's a valid point. There are experiments involving other religions as well, but they're just for the archives.
>>534773275Oh? And why is that? Because he worked hard and it looked nice? The real issue is he made a technical work, didnt finish it, and was mad because something crude and hilarious actually accomplished what it set out to do.
>>534772982>>534773060That old post I posted reminds me of when I went to the Harvard Art Museum some years back. They had this thing in a gallery across from Monet and Van Gogh.
>>534772686I love landscapes and impressionism. I'm sure impressionism is probably the most normie entry to art appreciation, but I don't like hyper realistic or symbolic things. I don't like abstract either, or anything with a message. What are you thoughts on artists that just want to make pretty/melancholy pictures of nature? Not sublime stuff, but just normal every day scenes like flowers and fields.
Oh? And why is that? Because he worked hard and it looked nice? The real issue is he made a technical work, didnt finish it, and was mad because something pickle and rick actually accomplished what it pickled out to do.
>>534773561Sometimes I think it'd be nice to be recognized in the art world, but then I think of all the people that fill it like your pic. It must be a nightmare to deal with old lesbian feminists
>>534772257The institution is secondary and relevant to the phenomenon of art only insofar as a viewer allows themselves to be swayed by the ad verecundiam argument. Fundamentally, one must also distinguish between the artist, the artwork, and art itself. The artist is the source, the work is the medium, and art is the nexus of viewer, work, and context. Nice picture, by the way, of Richter—I studied under him. He wasn’t a great teacher, since he delegated responsibility to art catalogs, but that was fine with me because I knew what I wanted.
>>534772949that's a very nice kirby. would put on wall. this is now a comic thread. fuck modern art.
>>534773705though they did have a nice Finger Box in a nearby gallery too
>>534773705Don't try to gain recognition in the art world; instead, strive to meet the highest standards in your artwork.
>>534773918comic art you say?day of the anti hero?it's hip to only tearing down things, never building it up?Sounds The Boys.
>>534774009I agree, thanks. I don't have a teacher. Sometimes I think I should find one.
>>534773778Really? Hell yeah, that's the coolest shit I've heard in a while. I almost never get to talk about this stuff with someone in the know. I'm a lowly pleb who cannot into visual art, but I've had my prose/poetry published a few times, and suckled upon the teets of many a fledgling (buxom) MA at the local art academy in my youth.Now with regard to the institution, it's like Foucault describes limiting a dialectic; the instution doesnt exert power over the veiwer under normal circumstances, but on the conception of ideas and forms from the artist by applying selective pressure or pruning. It's a form of mind control because if you cant conceptualize the idea, you cant think it and cant express it. The structure then becomes self reinforcing, this person is lauded for that, that person is chastized for this, and as a result the viewer only has limited access to visual and symbolic conceptions along the same lines, like an artistic panopticon that regulates itself. As a post structuralist, that's why I wanted the focus of the insitution to be maximizing and sorting the individuals with variance over homogenizing things into a style or a movement.
>>534773578it's not normie. the range is wide and imho it's a veritably fascinating form of art. way better than what came after. and it's making a comeback sorta. thank god some newcomers do love beauty for inspiration. so do some buyers.
>>534756787Pollock was based. Stay mad and die mad eurocuck.
