Chinese artists are copying Europes finest artworks, while Europeans create garbage like this.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
Chinese artists are copying Europes finest artworks, while Europeans create garbage like this.
Chinese artists are copying Europes finest artworks, while Europeans create garbage like this.
|
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
the fact you don!t understand it doesn't mean it's bad
>some ugly figures showing underweight to obese women
>so deep
>acting like a homosexual because you can't into the human form
If we posted the other side with all the regular looking iterations of this b***h you would be hooting and beating your dick to it like the dopamine addled moron you are
Art is supposed to make you feel, not think.
>Art is supposed to
here's another pseud lol
good art doesn't need explanaition, that's modern bs
I agree, here are the reasons why i think it's interesting without knowing anything about it
1. it's just an interesting study of human physiology, i'd just enjoy looking at and inspecting the folds of skin or bones, the changes of human face depending on fat etc.
2. by putting those figures in a circle it basically shows what are the extremes and evidently it shows both of them as ugly and unhealthy, meanwhile left from the anorectic bodytype would generally be percieved as pretty meanwhile right of the obese would be percieved as fat and ugly, quite obvious beauty standards commentary
3. its a female body illustrating the weight issue is mainly a female thing, quite obvious gender commentary
4. every piece makes you feel something else towards the person when they are made to be the same person in different weights, making a commentary on how we judge people
Sure it's bullshit i came up with on the spot, i'm just illustrating what i mean by "understand". It means to actually look at it for a bit, think about what it might mean or try to show. I doubt OP's thoughts went anywhere further than "its leftist bullshit"
I don't care about your ramblings, didn't read lol, gtfo with your shitty (f)art
>present an issue
>get the issue explained
>"idc its too long im not reading that"
you are an actual child
modern art is detached from the community it says it comes from, this is a key point for it to be shit
>modern art is very strongly based in interpretation
I know, it's shit. Auratic and post-auratic art is moronic and bad too, art is not philosophy, you've been lied and you swallowed it
Indeed. Art doesn't need to be veiled in academic obscurity, pompous skill, or even intent as long as it serves a purpose, which this contemporary and highly relevant piece surely does, as you have just given four examples of.
/back padding
I realised you might mean that art should just look pretty, without any actual thought about it necessary, same as
To which i can just say you Black folk missed the last 150 years of history of art, modern art is very strongly based in interpretation. But that's the issue with art, nobody cares there is a reason why ultrarealistic countryside sceneries aren't the shit anymore. You homosexuals just assume you can come in with 0 knowledge and judge modern art. Think about modern sociology, psychology or politics. Same as those, art had some history and development and without knowing it, theres no wonder you don't understand the modern one and think it's bad.
>you Black folk missed the last 150 years of history of art
We didn't miss it, we just think it's a bad development and art was much better before.
>modern sociology, psychology or politics
Same goes for these.
Since you think you can judge it, you must've surely at least read up on it and can explain the point and context of picrelated without googling it, right? You're not just talking out of your ass based on the few sentences you remember from primary school and some cherrypicked photos on IQfy... right?
I remember it being talked about in Roger Scruton's documentary, but I don't care enough to look it up again, because like others have said, yes, art can have meaning and convey a message, but its main purpose is that of beauty.
Plato refers to The One also as The Good, because the more something is complete the better it is. Something that is harmonious and complete, is beautiful and thus good. (Post)-modern art a lot of time tries to create disharmony, which makes it the opposite of beautiful and good.
In my opinion you can shittalk something once you know about it. Recontextualization which is the main point of Fountain, is one of the basis of modern art and without knowing that concept you cannot grasp a big part of modern art and it will just seem stupid and pointless.
I agree with your statement, but in this context most people already subconsciously know what is wrong with contemporary art and don't need to educate themselves on it, although it would make their arguments more sophisticated.
Recontextualisation not only applies to contemporary art, but contemporary thought as a whole: "Everything can be everything, there is no one truth, all is subjective."
This combined with rampant individualism where everyone wants to be unique, leads to the disaster of contemporary art. Artists don't even try to create something beautiful anymore, because it's in the eye of the beholder anyways, so they turn to creating something that is unique and conveys their own personal message.
A piece of art should be beautiful without any context, context should only make it more beautiful.
Good art is divine, it is created through the subconscious and conscious observation of nature and its effortless beauty.
>art should be beautiful without any context
>posts painting you can only appreciate if you know what plants are, what sunsets are, what architecture is
woah....
moron.
Nature is inherently beautiful even if you've never seen it before. Go to a place with an ecosystem you've never seen before and it will seem beautiful to you. Why do you think the golden ratio is so appealing? Because it's ubiquitous in nature.
Ancient architecture is an imitation of this natural beauty.
>Go to a place with an ecosystem you've never seen before and it will seem beautiful to you
ok, tell me why the barren hellscape of the artic circle looks beautiful to you
>posts a fricking painting
I asked for a description from YOU
>describe to me what the colour red looks like without showing me it
>red is a beautiful color
>why?
>here's a red painting
are you moronic?
to me what the colour red looks like without showing me it
You can only refute my argument if you manage to do this.
Imagine if hot was a colour.
I AM NOT ASKING WHAT THE RED COLOR LOOKS LIKE I AM ASKING WHY YOU FIND THE FRICKING ARTIC BEAUTIFUL
Okay okay, I'll do it or else you'll burst a blood vessel.
So... the arctic is beautiful because it is part of nature and nature is inherently beautiful since it was made by the divine.
I refuse to give any other explanation, because the beauty of something that isn't made by humans is not fully comprehensible by humans and it's definitely not possible to capture it in words. Divine art possesses the same qualities despite being "made" by a human, because the artist was just a tool of the muses, like a sickle is a tool for a farmer.
by your own logic everything a human makes is inherently beautiful since we were made by the divine.
but of course you're going to deny this without realizing you are going against your own meaningless bullshit
>nature is inherently beautiful since it was made by the divine.
Is literal human shit beautiful?
Is a rotten corpse?
not him but I jerk off to both of them
painting you can only appreciate if you know what plants are, what sunsets are, what architecture is
moron have you seen some old art? Artists painted episodes of Greek mythology and Christian messaging in visual metaphor
>Artists painted episodes of Greek mythology and Christian
so you are telling me artists painted shit only the educated could actually interpret and understand?
wow, very postmodern very degenerate
Your idea implies that artists job is basically just to recreate the physical world as faithfully as possible and i just disagree with that. For me, art is precisely about having the freedom to manipulate physical world and play with it, not just copy it.
>Your idea implies that artists job is basically just to recreate the physical world as faithfully as possible
The job is not to recreate only the physical world, but all planes of reality, that's why I said good art is divine. The difficulty of creating good art is to convey something beyond material reality with material means.
>art is precisely about having the freedom to manipulate physical world and play with it, not just copy it.
Yes, you (the artist) play with it, which makes it not divine and thus not beautiful. The most beautiful pieces of art were created through divine inspiration (the muses).
We are approaching it from different points of view, since i'm an atheist and i see "beauty" as evolutionary tool that animals have to know what to keep around it (bug ugly>stay away, female of same species>stay close, dry and muddy area>stay away, sunny meadow>stay close etc.) which is heavily culturaly modified in humans.
How would you define "beauty"? I know that "divine" but what are the specific criteria for something to be beautiful for you?
I explained it here
but basically something is more beautiful the more complete it is. Another way to say this would be harmonious, everything seems to be in its right place. It evokes the same kind of feeling like when you stand on top of a mountain and look into the distance or when you feel a light breeze on your face during a summer day. It's not really something that can be described with words, but I think you know what I mean.
To be fair Fountain is literally a shitpost, Duchamp was incredibly edgy and was mocking the very concept of "art" as being meaningless. All the pseuds who've been holding it up as great art and imitating it for decades missed the point.
Yeah it's hilarious how richgays actually started ordering that to hang around their mansions after it got popular. Nevertheless it's still been a very formative event/work that shaped following art.
>a shitpost
how do you recognize what is a shitpost and what isn't? you do so by knowing a frick ton about a topic and being able to intuitively understand the subtle irony in someone's work.
it's just like knowing a frick ton about memes and being able to immediately understand a new meme you've never seen before and knowing exactly which "meme rules" it breaks and how.
if you truly studied the cultural millieu of the time you'd immediately get the message of the artist. conservatards that claim those art pieces aren't understandable are just taking something out of context and lamenting ignorance.
duchamp didn't make that shit for you living a trillions years later, he made it to criticize that moment in timeand if you don't bother studying it you simply cannot complain.
Because the homie himself said so.
>No, not rejected. A work can’t be rejected by the Independents. It was simply suppressed. I was on the jury, but I wasn’t consulted, because the officials didn't know that it was I who had sent it in; I had written the name "Mutt" on it to avoid connection with the personal. The "Fountain" was simply placed behind a partition and, for the duration of the exhibition, I didn’t know where it was. I couldn't say that I had sent the thing, but I think the organizers knew it through gossip. No one dared mention it. I had a falling out with them, and retired from the organization. After the exhibition, we found the "Fountain" again, behind a partition, and I retrieved it! (Marcel Duchamp, 1971
The whole thing was an experiment on how far he could push the Society of Independent's Artists policy on accepting anything. It's like posting Exodia on /b/ just so you can call the jannies hypocrites when they delete it.
Holy BTFO
And a meme analogy? Are you straight from 9gag?
>9gag
Based 25 year old boomer.
>memes aren't art
lol just go back
>reading comprehension
you making fun of my use of memes clearly implies you don't think they are art and thus aren't apt for a true comparison.
but whatever, don't you have a reddit to go back to?
You clearly are not the one who should say that. Don't you have a "dankbruhgoeshardmemes" page to look at right now? You'll fit right in with that lower caps detached air
>Chinese artists are copying Europes finest artworks
What do you mean?
>copying
It's called conserving
You don't even bother to preserve your own culture
This is unironically kind of kino.
Like a visual representation of what degeneracy does. Two extremes of disparity, both mean death.
Wow you took figures people saw at least a hundred times in sci-fi movies/fps? So kinoooooo
If you really see no difference between having a morbidly obese character in Doom and having morbidly obese statue at a museum, then there is no hope for you
>someone there is no hope for: there is no hope for you
A classic
for anyone wandering the work in OP is Eve by Ted Lawson
Thanks
>Ted Lawson
( From Wikipedia ) "For the life-sized piece, titled Ghost In The Machine, Lawson wrote thousands of lines of code directing a CNC machine to draft his portrait, thus merging manufacturing and artistic processes. He then hooked himself up to a robotic arm intravenously, and spent hours literally pouring his blood into the work. The visceral piece, a collaborative effort between man and machine, challenges those who consider digital or mechanical art to be more removed than traditional fine art fields like painting and drawing."
Hahaha and now reread this thread
https://art-sheep.com/art-sheep-features-ted-lawsons-bizarre-figurative-sculptures/
Your statement is far fetched based on one example, but the example is interestingly provoking you enough to make a thread about it, dooming the entirety of the European art scene, so how can that be bad art?
the homosexuals ITT saying that "muh real art doesn't need explanation" are the funniest thing to me.
they truly believe old paintings were ment to be looked at from a place of ignorance whereas all of them were made to be filled of contemporary and old references only understood intuitively by the educated ones.
but no of course, any amerishart can look at a Michelangelo painting and really "get" the art behind it lol, typical pseudohistorical dribble by the usual LARPing conservatards who have never opened a fricking book in their lives
>well i like it because... there is a pretty lady... and there is a pretty sea.. and some birds
I always just imagine them trying to explain their opinions on art and why specifically is this better than modern art, i am pretty sure it wouldn't go beyond this 3rd grade level
You do know China has shittons of Modern Artists right? They even have one of the edgiest.
It's not hard
If it looks good, it's good.
Simple as
>chinks copy while euros innovate and push boundaries
A tale as old as time
Cultures rise, then stagnate and rot.
We are currently in the rot cycle.
2, 3, 4, 5 are okay. The rest is not healthy.
Art is similar to architecture.
You can write a 2500-word essay on why modern stuff is actually great and subversive and I just don't get it and am such a simpleton.
I'm still going to prefer an attractive building over a box of concrete and glass.
>Chinese artists are copying
> Europeans create
Congratulations, OP! You got to the point!