One night I am talking to a woman at this university bar and she tries to admonish me for wearing a black double breasted coat with brown slacks, a flat cap and leather gloves. She tells me that I look like a 'fascist'. But I looked good. I was well dressed. But somehow smart outfits make lefties think you are a fascist. These are the people who wear ponchos and grow their hair into dreadlocks even though they're white and their parents are millionaires. This Antifa anti-aesthetic comes up everywhere the more you look into it. In modern art, music and fashion. There is a deliberate effort to avoid forms that are harmonious and orderly. To these people, pushing ugliness onto the world is a revolutionary act of defiance against some imaginary fascist oppression. And you will understand a lot about the modern world and the reason why things are the way they are once you understand that ugliness, disproportion and disorder are embraced by the Left because their nutty ideas back them into this philosophical corner of concluding that natural form and beauty itself leads to fascism.
>>541377178Is this a story time vent thread?I went to a music festival last Saturday and I got super wasted. Like really fucking bad lmao. Threw up in front of this chick that I was 80% sure I was going to fuck. Sufficed to say, I only embarrassed myself, but I honestly don’t care lol. Had a great time with the boys regardless
>>541377178Fascism stole its aesthetics from Leftism.
>>541377178I actually like pollock It’s the 80s+ modern art that sucks ass “Here’s a piece of rusty metal hurrr so artistic”I once defaced a locally famous modern art sculpture one drunken night in undergrad. I was struggling with finals week in bioengineering and when I walked by I snapped. Made the news but they never found me teehee
Rightoid blog posts bore me the same way yapping foids do.
>>541377257Did you poo your pants?
>>541377389No but I did pass out for a bit. I was debating pissing myself but I didn’t end up doing it thankfully. To tell you the truth, I took like 4 tiny puffs of a blunt which I haven’t done since like 2020. Yes, I’m very much a lightweight lol
>>541377178>here is some abstract art from the 1970s. I prefer other art like [things made by leftiests]. Blah blah psycho babble (and rhetoric technique by the great Jew Freud)Yawn. People were saying this 30 years ago. Get some new material
>>541377178That's my favorite Pollock and by desktop background kek. Pollocks and similar abstract works are textural as much as visual. You kind of have to see them in person. Paintings of this style can become almost sculptural, with torn canvas or layers of paint six inches thick hanging off. It can be pretty beautiful. Anyway, fascist oppression isn't at all imaginary. We are very much expressing proto-fascist tendencies right now with our return to authoritarianism, identitarianism, and elite capture of the government. Fascism has existed in the past and there is no law preventing its recurrence in the now or future. Fascists don't rise to power on the message that they're the bad guys. Everyone thinks they're good under their own rubric. Even the Nazis spoke to the people primarily in doublespeak, often only obliquely referring to genuinely evil shit, and always couching it in this very characteristic mythopoetic language of heroic struggle and masculine identity, etc. And yeah, "looking good" in a certain sense is VERY fuckin fascist-coded kek (see picrel). But it's not just about looking good but looking good in a very particular way. The fascist aesthetic leans heavily on traditional or sometimes even classical masculinity, but on top of it, in its mature form, it takes that basic "clean" aesthetic and on top of it layers symbols of authority and dominance. It often ends up looking very campy and... well, gay. Tom of Finland is the archetypal example. He spent a career exploring the intersection between fascist aesthetic and homosexual camp. The crossover is significant.
>>541377178> once you understand that ugliness, disproportion and disorder are embraced by the Left because their nutty ideas back them into this philosophical corner of concluding that natural form and beauty itself leads to fascism.You are correct about this but also why are you dressing like you’re in Peaky Blinders in this day and age? That’s fucking gay as shit and you deserve to be ridiculed
>>541377664Great analysis. I recommend Stud: Architectures of Masculinity for more of what you’re speaking of.
>>541377178Hassan PIker looked cool as head in the mao suit
>>541377178For those who don't know, that's one of the most valuable paintings in the world and they guy who painted it made it by putting a canvas down on the floor and just dribbling paint onto it from above. ANYBODY could make thousands or millions of paintings just like it if they just had the time and materials.
>>541377664You can take any masculine imagery, depict it as faggotry, and call it a “homosexual intersection”. I could draw superman taking it up the shitter and call it an intersection of homosexuality and the superhero archetype
>>541377178>black jacket and brown slacks>I looked goodI guarantee you did not, in fact, look good. Go to /fa/ or something and learn how to dress yourself you fucking retard.
>>541377389what nationality are you? why make blog posts without stating what country you are from. are you azerbaijani?
>>541377178I don't see the point in bringing Pollock into this. Abstract Expressionism was legit imo. Pollock is legendary in wedging a permanent "masculine" element into the art realm. Not every painted out of the NY school was that awesome, but it introduces thought and emotion forward in a culturally meaningful way.Even though most of his work was in the 50s, everyone knows about it, and Leftists actually dislike is just for the reasons above alone.
Norman Rockwell didn't think so. He painted a Jackson Pollock in one of his paintings and was highly complimentary of his work.I think I can understand your perspective on things like a banana taped to a wall because that really is taking the piss out of people in some post-ironic way.However Jackson Pollock really was passionate about his art. You can't fault him for that and it does have an aesthetic appeal. In a minimalist apartment, it can look great.
>>541377923Oh my God haha snap. we were on the same wavelength >>541377923>>541377944
>>541377867Yeah but if your gay super man art essay isn't insightful no one cares.>>541377860>anyone can be a millionaire >no I've never tried it
>all these leftist degending that jew Pollocks childish fingerpainting crapFuck off
>>541377690>concluding that natural form and beauty itself leads to fascism.It does. Although this is dependent on the notion of fascism, in this context, being wholly understood as a spiritual transcendence, not a purely governmental and societal philosophy.
>>541377944>it can look great.so can color fields, but they aren't worth millions of dollars. modern art sells based on the artist not the art.
>>541377990Sorry but Pollock's work is aesthetic I bet my bottom dollar you hate AI correct?
>>541378022Once you describe fascism as some vague feeling you get from propaganda posters you can start saying the USSR was fascist as well as North Korea, and the mascot if Brawnie paper towels
>>541378092Well I hear you and understand your point but in terms of global infamy - notoriety - they are - in market terms they are that valuable.They are iconic pieces of history - so the pricing matches that status and influence I am not making a moral comment - purely market-value
>>541377971No, HE became a millionaire for doing something anybody could do, I'm not saying that anybody could become a millionaire by following the same process.I don't know what connection or network Jackson Pollack had that helped him turn his art into millions of dollars, I just know that if his paint spattered a different way, it would still be worth millions of dollars but if anybody else tried making a painting that way, it wouldn't be worth anything no matter how the canvas looked at the end. I'm saying the money had nothing to do with the artistic merits of the work. He could have painted anything and it would have been used as a form of money laundering.I understand that the paintings are valued the way they are to allow people to move large sums of money around, basically the same concept as "NFT's."I'm not saying that anybody can get paid like that. You have to know somebody or somebody has to know you. I don't know who the money men are behind Jackson Pollack or how he met them or worked with them. If I knew that, then maybe I WOULD go start making messes on canvas for millions of dollars.
>>541377178OP let me ask you something, if george clooney walked into that bar do you think anyone would insult his appearance?
>>541378173Read Evola.
>>541378204I dont know this part of art history. But I reckon it was because of trends and culture that was cutting edge.Its like thinking you can become rich making a game exactly like pac man in 2026.
>>541378253Has this thing ever worked in historyRetard: *Dumb statementNot retard: *RetortRetard: *Read this guy. No I wont say which chapter or book. Read it all. Then my statement will make sense!
>>541378304I have no idea what you're trying to say.I said what I meant and meant what I said and that's all I said and that's all I meant. I don't understand or agree with whatever analogy you're trying to use to explain . . . or debunk, or whatever the fuck you're trying to do to my post.
>>541378397Read it all, unironically. Or don’t. Evola isn’t for simpletons.
Jackson Pollock (and the modern abstract art movement in general) was a CIA psyop meant to serve as a counterpoint to art in Nazi Germany and the USSR.
>>541378193it's just a jewish racket. the only reason they are iconic pieces of history is because nyc jews told the world they are iconic pieces of history, short of that no one would give a fuck. >well his slop was way sloppier than contemporary slopstill slop
>>541378795Why do think Norman Rockwell loved Pollock so much?He even painted a tribute to him.
>>541378895because rockwell loved americana and was a fan of abstract art. modern art isn't totally without merit, but it's basically usaid before usaid. >here goy, this is good for you! remove life magazine, remove the marketing machine behind him, would his paintings have had the same impact? probably not.
>>541379388So do you think Rockwell was influenced by the marketing machine behind Pollock?Or he genuinely loved the work spiritually?I would love to know your take on that.
>>541379531i would imagine rockwell liked his work well enough. but the painting is ambiguous. kind of feel like the fact that rockwell was able to replicate pollacks style effortless for a magazine commission says more about pollock than it does rockwell.
>>541379966Did Pollock do something which had never been done before?
>>541378204>I don't know what connection or network Jackson Pollack had that helped him turn his art into millions of dollarsthe cia and the jewsliterallylook up encounter magazine
>>541380244I think that's pretty cool. Would LOVE a magazine like that today.Are there any?
>>541377178>leftistPollock was a CIA op to undermine communism.
>>541380630CIA is chic They need to doa. left/Right publication where you have left wing interviewing right wing and vice versa The current E-Celeb phenomena has been the dark age of intelligenceWe need a renaissance of the intel community
>>541380098if we exclude the artistic endeavors of toddlers, yes.
>>541380953Did Picasso -who was a master draughtsman- not say he wished to paint as a child?Was it not this which set him a part?Why do you think he said that, what did he mean by that spiritually?Do you think he wanted to simply be "lazy" or something else?
>>541380953The piece I shared here by Picasso:>>541381099What is the difference between that and this?Is one better than the other? Why?
>>541381548art is subjective, if you are asking which one shows more technical aptitude, the answer is obvious. picasso was a master, pollock was not. pollock caught the attention of the right people and they built a money machine around him. it happens all the time in art and music.
>>541377178pollock's paintings are very interesting. you've identified yourself as low IQ.
>>541381960The difference between the two pieces is one is purely observational of the object/subject - the other is through the Innocent Eye.It's Perceptual Art (what is strictly there)versus conceptualWhat your brain presumes is there.Which one is more artistic?
>>541377178>wearing a black double breasted coat with brown slacks, a flat cap and leather glovespfffffffft ahahahhahahhait's not that those clothes look bad, it's that the only people who want to look like that are dorks.if you're a model you can pull it off but you aren't.
>>541378616Evola is only for simpletons, lmao. You'd have to be a retard to give a shit what that idiot says.Would you like me to open him up to a random page and laugh at it in front of you and explain why it's fucking doggerel?
>>541382476>Which one is more artistic?that doesn't mean anything. can you tell me why the latest beat from lil niggy dope gunz is more artistic than a symphony or ballet?why is a diamond better than a lab grown diamond?why is jackson pollocks art sooooooo good.the answer to those questions is "because a jew on tv said so."
>>541377178because leftists are ugly and degenerate. your soul is expressed through your body. I might not be a good person but I don't go around looking for things to be upset about.
>>541377178It to distract themselves from their own shame, which is born in. When you are born inferior, you have to cope like normal people draw breath.
>>541382873Well You know there are a lot of symphonies which are not good. Just because it is a symphony doesn't mean it's necessarily good. Yes of course there is tremendous respect for the TECHNICAL CRAFT which Plato speaks of in Gorgias.What is the difference between the techne and the art in your opinion?The same for technically brilliant paintings, sometimes they don't capture the faculty of the soul - why is that?Is it because what is being transferred between the viewer and the artist is an energy, a state of consciousness and the art becomes an interface for that and in the technically proficient pieces which don't exude that energy, it is because the artist didn't act as a conduit for it,What do you think, does that make sense?As for television, well the 60s were a wonderful time in television for talk shows and that whole Americana culture we have been discussing. The more conservatives shows and you know, Dick Cavet - such a lovely array of mindsets all mingling and forming a cohesive culture of many nuances.
>>541377491If you're not used to it, 4 hits on a blunt will fuck you up. I prefer the plateau of eating THC rather than the mountain peak of smoking it.>>541377178Beauty is divine, op. Call them whatever name you will -- satanic, evil, degenerate -- but what they're pushing is the antitheses of divinity. The antithesis of whatever made us
>>541383358Well you could say that paintings looks like what it feels to be caught in a heavy shower of rain. That is a divine thing.I am imagine these paintings are particularly appealing to those with ADHD. Tactile people.
>>541378204I agree. I don't even dislike Pollack, but it's the absurdity of people not realizing anyone can do this. When I was in kindergarten we had an assignment to color in our coloring book. I told my teacher i was done and she told me to keep coloring. I got annoyed so i started coloring over the coloring and it turned into what was basically a crayon pollack. If i was an established artist someone would have bought that for half a million dollars or potentially more. But i was just a kindergartener annoyed that i had to keep doing busywork. I actually got in trouble for doing that. My teacher saw it and thought i might be troubled. She even brought it up to my mom. A pollack-like crayon piece resisting the capitalist system? An artistic statement? No just a kindergartener who ruined a page in his coloring book and got in trouble for it. If only i was an established artist. This is why no one takes art people seriously. What made me different from a real artist?
>>541382094I adore this one tooIt looks like an ancient chinese painting of a crane on a dark river - or kanji it has something so ancient oriental about it.
> George Caleb Bingham, American, "Fur Traders Descending the Missouri" (1845)This is one of my favorite paintings and I have no idea why. How could I possibly know?
>>541377178The rise in popularity of modern art was a CIA psyop. Libtards are Godless, stupid and always fall for the devil's lies.
>>541383740
> Tree-roots Vincent Van GoghI like this one for no reason
>>541383106how about you explain why pollocks paintings are good. simple enough task. what makes a pollock painting better that the pollock style painting rockwell did for the cover of the post?
>>541378616Ive got 2 dozen books I want to read. Im not going to just them aside and read sny book a random person online tells me because he insults me and insists I meed to know it to understand 2 sentences he wrote.Bozo
I like this. Can’t explain why
>>541384000old paintings were posters you tack on your wall they looked like this
>>541377178>wearing a black double breasted coat with brown slacks, a flat cap and leather gloves.> She tells me that I look like a 'fascist'.She said you look like a 'faggot' really, didn't she. A 'larping faggot' perhaps?
>>541384107You see what you are doing here is asking me to Channel into language- you want me to analyse a visceral reaction, in order to justify it to you-Even though earlier you stated art was subjective, well I would ask you - why is it subjective - when you are arguing that it is objective? Do you see what I mean?Is Art objective or subjective?
>>541384107I like this painting and I couldn’t tell you why. Should I not like it if I can’t explain it?
>>541384376I love both of themThe ornate baroque appearing gold frame is superb and just has such a particular feeling combined with the theological pieces.I love the Van Gogh equally.and this oneAnon has some great art to share. I love it.
>>541383855What i was talking was the absurdity of gatekeeping art, especially pricing art. Anyone can create a piece of art with or without formal training. It's not that a Pollack is not art, it's that it's not art if some random dude made it. If you can't find a way to market yourself then no one will care. Most people won't take you seriously. Your family and friends might appreciate and may be some acquaintances, but no one in the art world will take you seriously until they're told to. People will come up with a million reasons why this person isn't legitimate, but this other person is. If anything can be art then art is accessible to everyone. The people who claim this don't actually believe it. They still want to gatekeep, they still need to. Because if anything can be art and anyone can create art then they need to justify why their art matters. It's like a paradox.
>>541377808He didn’tHe looked like a little small-brained faggotBecause he is a little small-brained faggotJust like you
This was painted by an unknown painter during the 14th century. I like this painting for some unknown reason. Looks kinda modern don’t it
Bandini Pietà By Michelangelo I like this. The proportions are all off and it’s incomplete but I like it more than the one in the Vatican. Why? I don’t know. There are some things I don’t want to know
>>541384761It does
>>541384448i never argued that it was objective, i simply said that modern art is a racket and is usually selling the artist over the art. i went to uni for art, i was inside the sausage factory. i saw the pretentious bullshit first hand, i heard all the "the brush is an extension of my soul" shit.art is a form of expression, lobbing diarrhea at a canvas is a poor form of expression. simple as. hell you can't even articulate why you like a pollock, so whats the point? i'm not a huge fan of pollock but i could at least tell you why i like or dislike one of his paintings.
>>541384761>>541384365No Need to explain. I feel the same about this one.
