Contrarian is a nonsense word, contrarians do exist.
This word only sees since constant usage in 2022 because your average person is so brainfried and homogenised by internet age groupthink that you have people who find it completely inconceivable that someone could disagree with them, like it must be some kind of joke or an act.
>The fixation for IQfy to be contrarian every single time is really starting to push me away from this site
we will really miss you when you go back to wherever you came from.
>It's part of the anti-white agenda. They want whites to only look upon ugliness.
The authors are whites. Most of whites dont even agree with you, ´most of whites fought against slavery, most of whites fought against Hitler, most of whites want to ban you out of existence, even most of germans during the 1930s didn't agree with manlet who won by fraud and terror regime.
You are a hated unwanted minority everywhere and actually most of whites don't even cares about your schizophrenia attacks.
But Le Corbusier was a Nazi collaborationist and outspoken antisemite who wanted to renovate Algiers so white people would have better houses than browns.
Brutalism is part of the prowhite agenda.
Le Corbusier hated humans. He wanted everyone to become a production unit. Only people with severe mental illnesses would want to replicate his work or find inspiration in it when it comes to form, which, I guess, coïncides with the fact most architecture schools are decidedly left wing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He was utilitarianpilled.
Aesthete babies just aren't ready for the future.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Future is organic architecture, see
>Why is modern art so trashy?
Lack of ambition for transcendent projects, most skyscrapers will surely not survive the following centuries.
Spanish cathedral is Gaudi variation or organic architecture and is peak kino. Wallmart mentality killed art, artists just adapted to a society that doesn't want to create great projects.
or picrel, the ultimate fusion of human and irregular nature. Perfect art for a space exploring specie.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Looks like a bad set from Star Trek
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is that Javier Senosiain, Anon? I really dig his architecture. I'm usually more into historistic late 19th century architecture, Art Deco and Jugendstil but there's something about this organic style i really like. Especially incorporated stained glass elements look good with it. I also believe this might be a meaningful architecture of the future, so unlike the current sterile and uninspired way of constructing homes. Just picture living in one of these out in the countryside. I believe big cities will also become a thing of the past.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do you Black folk think that raw concrete covered with dirt and grime is nice?
>be /misc/tard >pride yourself on being a edgy minority >go apeshit when someone brings up the fact that most people don’t agree with them
Your doing the a lord’s work anon
>be normgroid >is content with being buttfed the most grotesque beliefs all day >also feels the need to brag about it and be thanked for it on IQfy.org, for god knows what reason
4GRAT
your wigger ancestors were slaves to Rome and Greece. They were literally driven around like chattel, forced to work, whipped, forced to kill eachother for entertainment, stripped naked and sold around. Being a blond pale skinned wigger was unironically viewed by many Philosophers (including Aristotle) to be a sign of cowardice and stupidity. So tell me, Mr. Wigger, what makes you think that your subhuman kind is repelled by ugliness, when it literally embodied ugliness and barbarity in the past?
You've self-mutiliated what healthy portions remained in your brain and rewired it to associate the sight of a naked woman with sperging out about politics and conspiracies. Billions of years of evolution, countless ancestors, all of it coming to an end in a person who broke their biological drive that even amoebas cannot frick up because your parents didn't monitor your screen time well enough. You will now reflexively call me a israelite, a minority, and a socialist because that's what your shallow mind can default to without the discomfort of thought. You will now deny that you were going to do that.
>thread discussing modern art >anons reply discussing the sources of funding and cultural impetus for modern art >"heh, stupid mindbroken chuds... now I bet you'll le call me a israelite etc etc"
???
Literally the most wacko right wing /misc/ tard i know has a two year old kid.
Its funny to dunk on spergs but the reality doesnt pan out.
All right wingers i know are either dads now or fell for the self improvement meme and are constantly fricking random bawds, you can call em degenerate which i routineley do but you cant call em incels.
Actual incels tend to be the centrist type
It's not though. You just don't care about art enough to look for contemporary art that is good, you simply want to score points for your political side.
anon please don't tell me you think Kurasov is a good artist? please be joking. this painting is pure trash. there is no soul or passion in any of his work its just a gimmick. he has one trick and its completely flat and stupid.
And now I’m getting to the point. One of the most serious problems in the world of modern art is the invention of original and fresh verbal interpretations of a work. Literally just a few phrases are required, which can then be reprinted in the catalogues and reviews. This apparently trivial detail can often decide the fate of a piece of art. It is very important here to be able to perceive things from an unexpected, shocking angle, and your friend, with his barbarically fresh view of the world, does this quite remarkably well. Therefore, Brian would like permission to use the ideas expressed by Alexander yesterday for the conceptual support of the installation. The accompanying text which I include below is by way of being a fusion of Brian’s and Alexander’s ideas:
Asuro Keshami’s work ’VD-42CC’ combines the languages of different areas - engineering, technology and science. At the base level the subject-matter is the overcoming of space: physical space, the space of taboo and the space of our subconscious fears. The languages of engineering and technology deal with the material from which the object is constructed, but the artist addresses the viewer in the language of emotions. When the viewer learns that certain people have given this little queer fifteen million pounds to stretch out a huge imitation-leather c**t above an abandoned soccer pitch, he remembers what he does in his own life and how much he is paid for it, then he looks at the photo of this little queer in his horn-rimmed spectacles and funny jacket, and experiences confusion and bewilderment bordering on the feeling that the German philosopher Martin Heidegger called ‘abandonment’ (Geworfenheit). The viewer is invited to concentrate on these feelings, which constitute the precise aesthetic effect that the installation attempts to achieve.
Because modern art is all about beating the dead horse of emotions in order to appeal to arts market (newground porn artists have to appeal to donating masses too).
They lack certain experiences, they lack perspective and impressions. They have troubles with stating unique questions or responding in new ways.
Modern day art is mostly crap, even memes and erotic arts.
>Why is modern art so trashy?
probably because western culture has become devoid of meaning, and so inevitably the cultural output will be contrived and meaningless
anon.... it's supposed to be trashy. that's the point.
when I first saw Warhol I said "this is materialistic, consumerist, superficial, soulless, and pointless". then I read the plaque and it turns out that's what its supposed to be. if you ever look at some modern art and think "thats shit" yes. its supposed to be shit. that's modern art.
When i shit in front of your house you think „someone shat in front of my house!“
But then i will say „that was precisely the point“
Yes,and?
Warhol is a hack btw and his art looks like shit.
Yes it hasnt been done before but that illustrates that the art world in the last 100 years has become ackin to junkies. They are addicted to the novel, no matter wether the novel actually holds any merit, ss long as it is surprising and evokes a reaction.
if it's hand-made, it's pretty good. Lacks the philosophical meaning of ancient sculture, but artistically it's impressive (if it's hand-made and not molded).
It's not though. You just don't care about art enough to look for contemporary art that is good, you simply want to score points for your political side.
Modern art is good insofar it retains some of the elements that make it good; elements such as proportions, harmony, color synergy, etc. The further you stray away from those elements, the trashier your art. The most extreme modern art throws away all concepts of harmony, proportions, meaning, etc. And when you do that, you're left with Pollock and Mondrian.
That's just your taste, the point is that dismissing contemporary art entirely just because you saw the PragerU video about how it sucks just makes you an idiot.
I am not dismissing modern art. I just said that modern art can be good, as long as it contains elements that are objectively good (harmony, proportions, etc). I am dismissing the idea that those objective elements do not exist. They do exist, and we should be proud that our civilization was one of the first to recognize them.
Pollock is objectively less harmonious, less meaningful, and has less color synergy than the Kurasov you posted earlier. These are objective standards. Now, if you wanna say that you personally like Pollock more, that's okay. That doesn't mean it's objectively better.
>"Art should always be realistic!"
Realism is a natural by-product of good art. Notice how any simple algorithm can create meaningless abstract art, but only an advance AI that boarders sentience can create realistic, objectively good images.
In other words, the goal is not realism. But realism is a natural by-product.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I am not dismissing modern art
Maybe you aren't, but the right-wing pseuds who continue to make these threads are.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Realism is a natural by-product of good art.
Except there's no point making realistic art when cameras with 12 megapixels exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why not? First of all, a 12megapixel camera cannot depict something that exists in your mind. You can't photograph an imaginary town or an imaginary person. Secondly, cameras are not omnipresent. Sometimes you need to depict an event that was not photographed or videotaped.
Apart from all that, the usefulness of realistic art has nothing to do with whether or not it's good. You can claim that "there's no point in making realistic art", but that doesn't make it bad. Realistic art is still objectively better than abstract garbage. I could use your own arguments against you. For example, there's no need for abstract art when simple computer algorithms exist. A simple computer algorithm can create new Pollock paintings everyday.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why not?
Because if the goal itself is realism the camera does it better than a human hand ever will. Do you have any knowledge of the history of art at all? Clearly not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Because if the goal itself is realism
I just said that the goal is not realism, 2 minutes ago. Read my post again: >In other words, the goal is not realism. But realism is a natural by-product.
Also, you failed to respond to my other argument. If realism is useless, then abstract art is also useless because a simply computer algorithm can create abstract art easily. You are stupid.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If realism is useless, then abstract art is also useless because a simply computer algorithm can create abstract art easily.
Yes, which means art must change, just like abstract art and cubism was invented when the camera was invented, something new must be invented since a computer can make abstract art.
And no, I'm not stupid, you just clearly don't give a rat's ass about art at all, and probably don't even like it, you just want a pretty right-wing utopia where everything is clean and has a straight line.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Yes, which means art must change, just like abstract art and cubism was invented when the camera was invented, something new must be invented since a computer can make abstract art.
Why? Why are we supposed to judge art based on what a computer can or cannot do? Is the point of art to create unique stuff all the time? You just admitted that art is to be based on what can be automated. That's stupid. Art is an inherently human endeavor . Computers cannot make art. Ants cannot make art. Fish cannot make art. >you just want a pretty right-wing utopia where everything is clean and has a straight line
Yes, that type of city would be objectively superior to a Brazilian favela.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You just admitted that art is to be based on what can be automated.
No, I admitted that art is influenced by technology just like everything else in society is influenced by technology. And yes, you're right, art is an inherently human endeavor, which is why it is interesting why you are so obsessed with realism, perfect symmetry and harmony, because that's not what human life is like at all.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>realism
I'm not obsessed with realism. Again, I said the goal is not realism. >perfect symmetry
Never said anything about "perfect symmetry". Sometimes asymmetry can create better results, like with the case of the Parthenon for example. >and harmony
Yes, harmony is a wonderful concept. It exists in music, art, and our lives. The world is harmonious. It's the perfect concept to unite philosophy, art, and science. >because that's not what human life is like at all
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess Jackson Pollock or an empty white canvas is what human life is like. My bad. >No, I admitted that art is influenced by technology
You said that we must come up with a new kind of art because computers can now make abstract art. That means that the measure of art, according to you, is whether computers are able to replicate human art or not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Oh, I'm sorry. I guess Jackson Pollock or an empty white canvas is what human life is like. My bad.
Not NECESSARILY Pollock you fricking moron, but human life is NOT a straight line, nor is it harmonious, nor is it symmetrical. It is full of hate, disappointment, violence, love, grief and death.
How will your Nazi statue of an Aryan overman depict grief and death? That's right, it won't, because such a society pretends those things don't exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh the variety of subjects is no argument in favor of what westerners are doing on the contrary
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Except there's no point making realistic art when cameras with 12 megapixels exist.
you are an uncultured low IQ pleb. a beautiful painting is worth 1000X more than a beautiful photo. it can transmit so much more feelings and emotion.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No camera in the world can give me an Ingres
2 years ago
Anonymous
>elements that are objectively good (harmony, proportions, etc)
that's nothing objectively good about those elements
element in a piece being good or bad is a matter of subjective taste
2 years ago
Anonymous
Several studies point towards the idea that there is is in fact such a thing as objective beauty.
One of them has been circulated here quite often recently hopefully it will be posted as I don’t have the link
2 years ago
Anonymous
still none of those elements are objectively good
and no, those studies don't show objective beauty because beauty is subjective by nature
there's no objective beauty property, it's a judgment make by the individual(subject) brain and the fact that there are people who like modern art shows that they judge it as good
2 years ago
Anonymous
You’re right but that’s just because you’re playing semantics. Any human based perception or judgment is by its nature subjective, but that doesn’t mean that any form of near consensual appreciation vested in biology should be discarded.
A beautiful woman will be judged as being beautiful by most cultures and a vast majority of individuals. Even those with fringe tastes will rarely find her ugly, with a few deviants indeed not preferring her to a «conventionally» ugly woman.
Same goes for architecture, and art for that matter. It’s not because some architects and art school experts can appreciate a form of beauty in a contemporary piece that the masses disregard, that there isn’t a set of characteristics that appeal to all, and would lead them to chose a piece generally considered beautiful by most over one considered beautiful only by a few.
That’s why a vast majority of people prefer façadist Paris to any thought proviking and space efficient brutalist or functionalist building. Some will find the outliers nice, but these beaux art harmonious façades and proportions just tick some neurological boxes that only psychopaths like Le Corbusier can safely detach themselves from to create their own works.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>that's nothing objectively good about those elements
Then you don't properly understand the concepts of harmony and symmetry.
You clearly are dismissing modern art anon
What does "modern art" even mean to you?
>What does "modern art" even mean to you?
Art and art-styles developed during or after than 19th and 20th centuries.
There is good contemporary art out there. It is just harder to find. It certainly wont be found in large mainstream ~~*galleries*~~ and ~~*museums*~~ tho.
When I look at art I don't want to think >heh, good idea
I want to think >woah, nice art
Ideas are cheap. Everyone has ideas all the time. If you have a good idea and waste it on "bad" execution it cheapens the worth of the idea.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>When I look at art I don't want to think
ok so you don't like conceptual art. Some people do >Everyone has ideas all the time
sure, but not all ideas are equally good or creative
2 years ago
Anonymous
Conceptual art is cheap because ideas are cheap. Everyone can be an ideaman. Not everyone can be a skilled artist.
>sure, but not all ideas are equally good or creative
You conveniently ignored this sentence. >If you have a good idea and waste it on "bad" execution it cheapens the worth of the idea.
>Some people do
"Some people" eat literal shit. Most wouldn't put it on their plate. Do they have delicate tastes, or are they shit-eaters?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why are you even giving credit to the idea that innovation is the forte of nowadays' art?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because having an idea is not innovative, so I'm not giving any credit. Most, if not all ideas have been thought of in some form at some point in time in the past. This is a painting made in 1574.
>Everyone can be an ideaman
no. I work in a creative field and this is just cope from people who ironically can't have a good idea if their life depended on it
Your "good ideas" are still worth shit without the craft to bring them to completion, ideaman.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Your "good ideas" are still worth shit without the craft to bring them to completion, ideaman.
good thing teamwork exists then. And guess who is the auteur of the work?( protip, not the codemonkeys)
2 years ago
Anonymous
>GPT-3 post.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Everyone can be an ideaman
no. I work in a creative field and this is just cope from people who ironically can't have a good idea if their life depended on it
2 years ago
Anonymous
i agree kurasov is shit
2 years ago
Anonymous
>kurasov is shit
first time I'm aware of this dude, it's shit-ish, but good at the same time. The dude is not straight up garbage, he has some kind of talent at least
2 years ago
Anonymous
I agree. I don't want the first thing I think when I see a painting to be "that's clever", rather "that's inspiring". This is why
Tangent, but I've read that cave art was supposed to simulate movement and rhythm, since you could only see so much in the dark with oil lights. So I thought how cubism is kind of similar, but compressed, though maybe this has already been observed.
It's great, but the resident /misc/yps in this thread will no doubt say it's not "symmetrical" or "harmonious" enough, which are euphemisms for "lacks swastikas and huge pectoral muscles".
You're stupid. Of course there's symmetry and harmony in that painting, which is why it is objectively better than most other modern art. A painting that was even more harmonious and symmetrical would be even better, objectively speaking. Also, I like how you put harmony and symmetry in quotes, as if these concepts do not exist. Talk about regression...
Soviet art was, for the most part, superb. The lack of swastikas is irrelevant. You are projecting and strawmanning, silly.
That painting was made in 2005, which completely dismantles your argument that modern art is bad.
So why do you keep making these threads you fricking loser?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>completely dismantles your argument that modern art is bad
I literally said that I am not dismissing modern art. >I am not dismissing modern art. I just said that modern art can be good, as long as it contains elements that are objectively good (harmony, proportions, etc).
Read it again stupid
I am not dismissing modern art. I just said that modern art can be good, as long as it contains elements that are objectively good (harmony, proportions, etc). I am dismissing the idea that those objective elements do not exist. They do exist, and we should be proud that our civilization was one of the first to recognize them.
Pollock is objectively less harmonious, less meaningful, and has less color synergy than the Kurasov you posted earlier. These are objective standards. Now, if you wanna say that you personally like Pollock more, that's okay. That doesn't mean it's objectively better.
[...]
Realism is a natural by-product of good art. Notice how any simple algorithm can create meaningless abstract art, but only an advance AI that boarders sentience can create realistic, objectively good images.
In other words, the goal is not realism. But realism is a natural by-product.
Like I said, all you are doing is projecting and strawmanning. I have nothing more to say. Keep seething.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I literally said that I am not dismissing modern art.
And yet you keep making these threads. And the reason I know it's you is because you are the same guy every time who uses the words "harmony", "symmetry" and "objectively better".
You're not fooling anyone, stop making these threads, you literally get BTFO'd every single time.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And the reason I know it's you is because you are the same guy every time who uses the words "harmony", "symmetry" and "objectively better".
You're right. I have made similar concepts about 3 or 4 times now. But I'm not the one making these thread. I'm just glad people make them. Don't make me post a screenshot to prove that it's not me. I won't do that.
I accept your surrender. It's good to know that you have no arguments left other than accusing me of spam.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>But I'm not the one making these thread
Sure you aren't lmao. Kiss my ass.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I literally said that I am not dismissing modern art.
You should be. Modern art is trash, sometimes even literally.
https://vimeo.com/101804860
Nude sculpture has always been highly contentious, with many viewing it as trashy.
This is especially true in the renascence.
Donatello's David was notorious for being too erotic, it wasn't even publicly displayed.
At the end of the day, we're all the same reactionary meat bags looking for ways to be mad at the next generation.
>Why is modern art so trashy?
Lack of ambition for transcendent projects, most skyscrapers will surely not survive the following centuries.
Spanish cathedral is Gaudi variation or organic architecture and is peak kino. Wallmart mentality killed art, artists just adapted to a society that doesn't want to create great projects.
And even if there is an ambition from any kind of artist, the religious organizations deny it just because it's a repackage or new, and can possible lead to blasfemy.
The only doors open to these artists are the Spiritual But Not Religious/New Age movements but they are full of nihilistic fake gurus. Still they don't have any general respect from society.
Putting aside the Money Laundering industry created after WW2, most of modern art is meant to be experimental.
Artists and architects were tired of the same forms and shapes, the same classical or medieval forms and their ripoffs, they wanted to create new styles and new artistic ideas and philosophies for new times.
all elitism should be interpreted as a bunch of homosexuals asking for their own violent eradication. if you produce shit the average guy does not like, then that's it, you are worthless, go takeup pigfarming. reacting to this state of affairs with an outburst of elitist drivel should be grounds of liveleak-worthy lynching.
What a moronic justification. No you coombrain you weren't getting a new style each hour in the past but neither are you now. Stop pretending that the dichotomy lies here.
>experimental
Theyre lazy. And no i dont mean the „block shaped“ ones. Those are all obvious.
Im talkimg about the „inspired“ ones with their organic shapes.
This shit may have been novel when Zaha Hadit did it but now it isnt, not because its been done before, but how easy it is.
My girlfriend studies architecture.
Try Rhino and Grasshopper.
Those „inspired“ and „groundbreaking „ shapes are literally what happens if you frick around with a few sliders in Grasshopper.
Its the architectual equivalent of 15 year old me fricking around with Powerpoint and discovering flashy scene transitions.
Or a child pressing random keys on a synthesizer.
It might look fancy for someone who has no fricking clue about it but a chimp could do it.
The only ones deserving of any credit here are the poor engineers who have to construct that garbage (fun fact: most of tjose designs are actually just plastic or aliminium panels stapled to yet another box, Loos must be spinning in his grave)
I don't think that modern art is bad by virtue of not being classical. Art that forces the onus of meaning onto the observer is lazy and pretentious. But there is art being made that is fun to look at and interesting to study.
I don't really think that's trashy anon. In a way, it's kind of beautiful. Speaking as a Christian, while it's immodest, yes, there's something to be stated about the beauty and natural attractiveness of the female form. Michaelangelo's David shows the opposite, the beauty the male form is capable of.
You have decided that you hate the category of "modern art" because it suits your politics.
The purpose of art is to express some sense or tone. Sometimes stirring beauty is the way to do that. Sometimes artists do other things - produce art that is not beautiful, that does not fit the standard forms and modes of expression popularised during periods of time deemed prestigious - they do this not because they cannot, but because they feel some other method or form conveys the tone they wish to capture better.
The idea that art must always be something so simple as a pretty picture is childish, and reflects the naive hatred for being made to confront reality that so many of you wear as if it's something to be proud of.
no, there's an objective talent drought that can be witnessed in all mediums and started in the 90s, same year digital art started getting introduced.
The simple cause is that any moron with connections can LARP as a pro since people don't really care about skills, only about relating, while real pros barely get jobs.
Because art had an economic purpose that stopped existing with
1. printing
2. photography
3. television
4. digital art tools
the first killed a bunch of traditional art outlets but gave paper drawings a golden age. the following 3 made art more irrelevant with each generation
I don't understand how shilling for or apologizing on behalf of reheated century-old dada shit is any less out of touch and kitsch than the guys wanting ebin neo-neoclassicist art. Like playing for outrage and trying to own the nonexistent conservative middle classes in 2022 is the lefty equivalent of VGH-ing over bernini and canova statues. So fricking boring.
Because leftists thought they were rebelling against the evils of class and privilege when the real evil was materialism. Thus they have done the same thing as those before them but in an even more vulgar and narcissistic form.
You all view nudity through a primitive lens - it is natural beauty personified. Humanity is so obsessed with sex that nudity only creates appetites for them, instead of charging emotions and thought.
there's also the fact that the human body is recognized by dedicated, ancient circuits in the brain which are very exigent and hard to fool. producing a lifelike image of a human is a major demonstration of ability. for instance Rubens totally failed at it.
Read Oswald Spengler.
To put it simply, the artistic possibilities of culture, where various arts are living forms, gradually exhausts those possibilities by actualizing them. The Last Supper has already been done. There is no doing it again. Since the high arts, sculpture, theater, poetry, oil painting, and music (classical music) have already culminated, what's left for the body of culture is reshaping what's been done. And before that even begins, first "experimentalism" happens (modern art). Cubism, and all that.
This lack of creativity is basically postmodernism: it's all been done. At first, it's somewhat "clever" and done by traditionally skilled artists. But over time, it reveals itself to be a philosophy which hides what it is: a total death of originality. Eventually, this cascades to the point where it stops being a novel subversion (say, Duchamp's 'readymades') and becomes the norm. And the norm becomes a death of actual skill.
For this same reason, and because of the prevailing cosmopolitan leftist attitude which incidentally took dominance, art itself has come to mean subversive, revolting, shocking, and disgusting. The artist of today has been deceived into thinking that to be artistic in the true sense is to be like that: a rebel of some sorts. This is plainly false, but it's what makes new art so ugly in all mediums, from music to most apparently: painting and sculpture. Previously, art was not a subversion of society's values, but an expression par excellence of them. Thus, Haydn, Mozart, Rembrandt...
This doesn't mean great art is no longer possible, just that living art forms based on building and reacting to previous work have died. You can find someone that can paint like the old masters, but it's essentially incidental.
>Why is modern art so trashy?
Because classic art is about the depiction of an idea, like beauty or strengh. Nothing sexual about them, even when they are naked. It's all about the intentions of the artist.
When the artist intends to make it sexual, it becomes trashy and not art anymore.
Read Schopenhauer, he described it pretty good.
Art always reflects the spirit of humanity. Art was great up til the early 20th century. After the european World Wars, you can see it degenerating. This can be observed right after WW1. After WW2, things turned completely sour. The culture gradually shifted to meaningless materialism and to boot, globohomosexual started ramping up as well. Nowadays art is perverted and meant to shock, put people into disgust and outrage. People who criticize the low quality art - which does not represent anything - are accused of "not getting it" by pretentious blue haired individuals all while gallery owners and art dealers are laughing their asses off 'cause they can sell a possibly even literal piece of shit at this point for millions. Current art shows us that the collective human spirit has become broken and schizo. Society is sick and this is reflected in art.
Modern everything is trashy. I got called a "fricking shithead" at my office job today. On the way home people were blasting Black person rap with their windows down. There's a fat chick in short shorts and a tank top outside my window right now.
>modern art trashy cause show vegana instead of penis
out of all artworks your deranged mind thinks of a female statue with a penis
It was appropriate given OP's apparent problem with vegana's. These are classical works of art, not modern.
nice and trappilled
Based early futa artist
The fixation for IQfy to be contrarian every single time is really starting to push me away from this site
Well take solace in the fact that there are plenty of websites you can be conformist on if the day ever comes you leave this mad house of a site.
IQfy's contrarianism is its conformism though.
Do you mean the act of holding a contrarian opinion is conformist or are there opinions here that are conformist?
No, I mean the act of compulsively calling something dumb if a sufficient amount of people in a thread call something good.
south park made that joke years ago
I genuinely think it looks good and that's why I'm asking who is the author.
>The fixation for IQfy to be contrarian every single time is really starting to push me away from this site
but.... then you're the contrarian
Contrarian to whom?
Contrarian is a nonsense word, contrarians do exist.
This word only sees since constant usage in 2022 because your average person is so brainfried and homogenised by internet age groupthink that you have people who find it completely inconceivable that someone could disagree with them, like it must be some kind of joke or an act.
No this site genuinely does just attract people who want to be contrarian for the sake of it, whether it's over art, movies or anything else
>Site deals out dopamine hits in the form of (you)'s
>Has the effect of encouraging inflammatory and controversial posts
Where do you think you are?
>The fixation for IQfy to be contrarian every single time is really starting to push me away from this site
we will really miss you when you go back to wherever you came from.
>2022 4chin
>contrarian
how new? summergays?
As a rule the first three or so replies will always be shitting on OP. After this you get the real discussion
>saying boobs le good is now contrarian
OP btfo by the first reply. Rest of the thread is just cope and seethe.
Yes. The male form in art is sublime.
Check the early lives of who’s funding it.
Dilate
Kvetch.
>anon is such a massive homosexual he now sees statues of naked woman as israeli ploys
It's part of the anti-white agenda. They want whites to only look upon ugliness.
>It's part of the anti-white agenda. They want whites to only look upon ugliness.
The authors are whites. Most of whites dont even agree with you, ´most of whites fought against slavery, most of whites fought against Hitler, most of whites want to ban you out of existence, even most of germans during the 1930s didn't agree with manlet who won by fraud and terror regime.
You are a hated unwanted minority everywhere and actually most of whites don't even cares about your schizophrenia attacks.
>Most of whites dont even agree with you
The ones that are smart enough to speak English do
DESTROYED
This is a thread about art and you go off about le gnaudzees
You're an anti-white.
t. shitsk
>The authors are whites
they're israelites...
But Le Corbusier was a Nazi collaborationist and outspoken antisemite who wanted to renovate Algiers so white people would have better houses than browns.
Brutalism is part of the prowhite agenda.
Le Corbusier hated humans. He wanted everyone to become a production unit. Only people with severe mental illnesses would want to replicate his work or find inspiration in it when it comes to form, which, I guess, coïncides with the fact most architecture schools are decidedly left wing.
He was utilitarianpilled.
Aesthete babies just aren't ready for the future.
Future is organic architecture, see
or picrel, the ultimate fusion of human and irregular nature. Perfect art for a space exploring specie.
Looks like a bad set from Star Trek
Is that Javier Senosiain, Anon? I really dig his architecture. I'm usually more into historistic late 19th century architecture, Art Deco and Jugendstil but there's something about this organic style i really like. Especially incorporated stained glass elements look good with it. I also believe this might be a meaningful architecture of the future, so unlike the current sterile and uninspired way of constructing homes. Just picture living in one of these out in the countryside. I believe big cities will also become a thing of the past.
Why do you Black folk think that raw concrete covered with dirt and grime is nice?
Hideous eyesore, what a mess
You're a israelite and Corbusier would've been content with your erasure no doubt
Holy based
Holy shit, fricking based.
Look at all of those seething replies.
>wypipo bad
>holy based!
let me help you
Try reading, he never said white people were bad. He said white artists don't give a shit about your racial politics.
Shut the frick up you fricking rat faced israelite.
>posts the hitler of architecture
>be /misc/tard
>pride yourself on being a edgy minority
>go apeshit when someone brings up the fact that most people don’t agree with them
Your doing the a lord’s work anon
>be normgroid
>is content with being buttfed the most grotesque beliefs all day
>also feels the need to brag about it and be thanked for it on IQfy.org, for god knows what reason
4GRAT
Excellent post, imageboard schizo racists on suicide watch.
Anyone have the screenshot with the big rant comparing /misc/troons to furries?
>A hot naked chick is ugly
your wigger ancestors were slaves to Rome and Greece. They were literally driven around like chattel, forced to work, whipped, forced to kill eachother for entertainment, stripped naked and sold around. Being a blond pale skinned wigger was unironically viewed by many Philosophers (including Aristotle) to be a sign of cowardice and stupidity. So tell me, Mr. Wigger, what makes you think that your subhuman kind is repelled by ugliness, when it literally embodied ugliness and barbarity in the past?
Holy israelitery
>They want whites to only look upon ugliness.
So looking a nude woman in pain is ugliness?
You've self-mutiliated what healthy portions remained in your brain and rewired it to associate the sight of a naked woman with sperging out about politics and conspiracies. Billions of years of evolution, countless ancestors, all of it coming to an end in a person who broke their biological drive that even amoebas cannot frick up because your parents didn't monitor your screen time well enough. You will now reflexively call me a israelite, a minority, and a socialist because that's what your shallow mind can default to without the discomfort of thought. You will now deny that you were going to do that.
>thread discussing modern art
>anons reply discussing the sources of funding and cultural impetus for modern art
>"heh, stupid mindbroken chuds... now I bet you'll le call me a israelite etc etc"
???
Literally the most wacko right wing /misc/ tard i know has a two year old kid.
Its funny to dunk on spergs but the reality doesnt pan out.
All right wingers i know are either dads now or fell for the self improvement meme and are constantly fricking random bawds, you can call em degenerate which i routineley do but you cant call em incels.
Actual incels tend to be the centrist type
This actually looks good. Who's the artist? Reverse search only gave me Pinterest profiles.
What is good about it?
It's realistic.
it makes my dick hard
anon please don't tell me you think Kurasov is a good artist? please be joking. this painting is pure trash. there is no soul or passion in any of his work its just a gimmick. he has one trick and its completely flat and stupid.
>anon please don't tell me you think Kurasov is a good artist?
Of course he is a good artist. Do you think everyone and their mother can paint like that? Stop being a gay.
Begone coomer
Sauce?
And now I’m getting to the point. One of the most serious problems in the world of modern art is the invention of original and fresh verbal interpretations of a work. Literally just a few phrases are required, which can then be reprinted in the catalogues and reviews. This apparently trivial detail can often decide the fate of a piece of art. It is very important here to be able to perceive things from an unexpected, shocking angle, and your friend, with his barbarically fresh view of the world, does this quite remarkably well. Therefore, Brian would like permission to use the ideas expressed by Alexander yesterday for the conceptual support of the installation. The accompanying text which I include below is by way of being a fusion of Brian’s and Alexander’s ideas:
Asuro Keshami’s work ’VD-42CC’ combines the languages of different areas - engineering, technology and science. At the base level the subject-matter is the overcoming of space: physical space, the space of taboo and the space of our subconscious fears. The languages of engineering and technology deal with the material from which the object is constructed, but the artist addresses the viewer in the language of emotions. When the viewer learns that certain people have given this little queer fifteen million pounds to stretch out a huge imitation-leather c**t above an abandoned soccer pitch, he remembers what he does in his own life and how much he is paid for it, then he looks at the photo of this little queer in his horn-rimmed spectacles and funny jacket, and experiences confusion and bewilderment bordering on the feeling that the German philosopher Martin Heidegger called ‘abandonment’ (Geworfenheit). The viewer is invited to concentrate on these feelings, which constitute the precise aesthetic effect that the installation attempts to achieve.
Because modern art is all about beating the dead horse of emotions in order to appeal to arts market (newground porn artists have to appeal to donating masses too).
They lack certain experiences, they lack perspective and impressions. They have troubles with stating unique questions or responding in new ways.
Modern day art is mostly crap, even memes and erotic arts.
>Why is modern art so trashy?
probably because western culture has become devoid of meaning, and so inevitably the cultural output will be contrived and meaningless
anon.... it's supposed to be trashy. that's the point.
when I first saw Warhol I said "this is materialistic, consumerist, superficial, soulless, and pointless". then I read the plaque and it turns out that's what its supposed to be. if you ever look at some modern art and think "thats shit" yes. its supposed to be shit. that's modern art.
When i shit in front of your house you think „someone shat in front of my house!“
But then i will say „that was precisely the point“
Yes,and?
Warhol is a hack btw and his art looks like shit.
Yes it hasnt been done before but that illustrates that the art world in the last 100 years has become ackin to junkies. They are addicted to the novel, no matter wether the novel actually holds any merit, ss long as it is surprising and evokes a reaction.
if it's hand-made, it's pretty good. Lacks the philosophical meaning of ancient sculture, but artistically it's impressive (if it's hand-made and not molded).
It's not though. You just don't care about art enough to look for contemporary art that is good, you simply want to score points for your political side.
Modern art is good insofar it retains some of the elements that make it good; elements such as proportions, harmony, color synergy, etc. The further you stray away from those elements, the trashier your art. The most extreme modern art throws away all concepts of harmony, proportions, meaning, etc. And when you do that, you're left with Pollock and Mondrian.
That's just your taste, the point is that dismissing contemporary art entirely just because you saw the PragerU video about how it sucks just makes you an idiot.
I am not dismissing modern art. I just said that modern art can be good, as long as it contains elements that are objectively good (harmony, proportions, etc). I am dismissing the idea that those objective elements do not exist. They do exist, and we should be proud that our civilization was one of the first to recognize them.
Pollock is objectively less harmonious, less meaningful, and has less color synergy than the Kurasov you posted earlier. These are objective standards. Now, if you wanna say that you personally like Pollock more, that's okay. That doesn't mean it's objectively better.
Realism is a natural by-product of good art. Notice how any simple algorithm can create meaningless abstract art, but only an advance AI that boarders sentience can create realistic, objectively good images.
In other words, the goal is not realism. But realism is a natural by-product.
>I am not dismissing modern art
Maybe you aren't, but the right-wing pseuds who continue to make these threads are.
>Realism is a natural by-product of good art.
Except there's no point making realistic art when cameras with 12 megapixels exist.
Why not? First of all, a 12megapixel camera cannot depict something that exists in your mind. You can't photograph an imaginary town or an imaginary person. Secondly, cameras are not omnipresent. Sometimes you need to depict an event that was not photographed or videotaped.
Apart from all that, the usefulness of realistic art has nothing to do with whether or not it's good. You can claim that "there's no point in making realistic art", but that doesn't make it bad. Realistic art is still objectively better than abstract garbage. I could use your own arguments against you. For example, there's no need for abstract art when simple computer algorithms exist. A simple computer algorithm can create new Pollock paintings everyday.
>Why not?
Because if the goal itself is realism the camera does it better than a human hand ever will. Do you have any knowledge of the history of art at all? Clearly not.
>Because if the goal itself is realism
I just said that the goal is not realism, 2 minutes ago. Read my post again:
>In other words, the goal is not realism. But realism is a natural by-product.
Also, you failed to respond to my other argument. If realism is useless, then abstract art is also useless because a simply computer algorithm can create abstract art easily. You are stupid.
>If realism is useless, then abstract art is also useless because a simply computer algorithm can create abstract art easily.
Yes, which means art must change, just like abstract art and cubism was invented when the camera was invented, something new must be invented since a computer can make abstract art.
And no, I'm not stupid, you just clearly don't give a rat's ass about art at all, and probably don't even like it, you just want a pretty right-wing utopia where everything is clean and has a straight line.
>Yes, which means art must change, just like abstract art and cubism was invented when the camera was invented, something new must be invented since a computer can make abstract art.
Why? Why are we supposed to judge art based on what a computer can or cannot do? Is the point of art to create unique stuff all the time? You just admitted that art is to be based on what can be automated. That's stupid. Art is an inherently human endeavor . Computers cannot make art. Ants cannot make art. Fish cannot make art.
>you just want a pretty right-wing utopia where everything is clean and has a straight line
Yes, that type of city would be objectively superior to a Brazilian favela.
>You just admitted that art is to be based on what can be automated.
No, I admitted that art is influenced by technology just like everything else in society is influenced by technology. And yes, you're right, art is an inherently human endeavor, which is why it is interesting why you are so obsessed with realism, perfect symmetry and harmony, because that's not what human life is like at all.
>realism
I'm not obsessed with realism. Again, I said the goal is not realism.
>perfect symmetry
Never said anything about "perfect symmetry". Sometimes asymmetry can create better results, like with the case of the Parthenon for example.
>and harmony
Yes, harmony is a wonderful concept. It exists in music, art, and our lives. The world is harmonious. It's the perfect concept to unite philosophy, art, and science.
>because that's not what human life is like at all
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess Jackson Pollock or an empty white canvas is what human life is like. My bad.
>No, I admitted that art is influenced by technology
You said that we must come up with a new kind of art because computers can now make abstract art. That means that the measure of art, according to you, is whether computers are able to replicate human art or not.
>Oh, I'm sorry. I guess Jackson Pollock or an empty white canvas is what human life is like. My bad.
Not NECESSARILY Pollock you fricking moron, but human life is NOT a straight line, nor is it harmonious, nor is it symmetrical. It is full of hate, disappointment, violence, love, grief and death.
How will your Nazi statue of an Aryan overman depict grief and death? That's right, it won't, because such a society pretends those things don't exist.
Oh the variety of subjects is no argument in favor of what westerners are doing on the contrary
>Except there's no point making realistic art when cameras with 12 megapixels exist.
you are an uncultured low IQ pleb. a beautiful painting is worth 1000X more than a beautiful photo. it can transmit so much more feelings and emotion.
No camera in the world can give me an Ingres
>elements that are objectively good (harmony, proportions, etc)
that's nothing objectively good about those elements
element in a piece being good or bad is a matter of subjective taste
Several studies point towards the idea that there is is in fact such a thing as objective beauty.
One of them has been circulated here quite often recently hopefully it will be posted as I don’t have the link
still none of those elements are objectively good
and no, those studies don't show objective beauty because beauty is subjective by nature
there's no objective beauty property, it's a judgment make by the individual(subject) brain and the fact that there are people who like modern art shows that they judge it as good
You’re right but that’s just because you’re playing semantics. Any human based perception or judgment is by its nature subjective, but that doesn’t mean that any form of near consensual appreciation vested in biology should be discarded.
A beautiful woman will be judged as being beautiful by most cultures and a vast majority of individuals. Even those with fringe tastes will rarely find her ugly, with a few deviants indeed not preferring her to a «conventionally» ugly woman.
Same goes for architecture, and art for that matter. It’s not because some architects and art school experts can appreciate a form of beauty in a contemporary piece that the masses disregard, that there isn’t a set of characteristics that appeal to all, and would lead them to chose a piece generally considered beautiful by most over one considered beautiful only by a few.
That’s why a vast majority of people prefer façadist Paris to any thought proviking and space efficient brutalist or functionalist building. Some will find the outliers nice, but these beaux art harmonious façades and proportions just tick some neurological boxes that only psychopaths like Le Corbusier can safely detach themselves from to create their own works.
>that's nothing objectively good about those elements
Then you don't properly understand the concepts of harmony and symmetry.
>What does "modern art" even mean to you?
Art and art-styles developed during or after than 19th and 20th centuries.
You clearly are dismissing modern art anon
What does "modern art" even mean to you?
>"Art should always be realistic!"
>pollock and Mondrian
>no harmony or proportions
bait
There is good contemporary art out there. It is just harder to find. It certainly wont be found in large mainstream ~~*galleries*~~ and ~~*museums*~~ tho.
FRICK THIS THREAD POST GOOD MODERN ART
you first
another kurasov
Based.
When I look at art I don't want to think
>heh, good idea
I want to think
>woah, nice art
Ideas are cheap. Everyone has ideas all the time. If you have a good idea and waste it on "bad" execution it cheapens the worth of the idea.
>When I look at art I don't want to think
ok so you don't like conceptual art. Some people do
>Everyone has ideas all the time
sure, but not all ideas are equally good or creative
Conceptual art is cheap because ideas are cheap. Everyone can be an ideaman. Not everyone can be a skilled artist.
>sure, but not all ideas are equally good or creative
You conveniently ignored this sentence.
>If you have a good idea and waste it on "bad" execution it cheapens the worth of the idea.
>Some people do
"Some people" eat literal shit. Most wouldn't put it on their plate. Do they have delicate tastes, or are they shit-eaters?
Why are you even giving credit to the idea that innovation is the forte of nowadays' art?
Because having an idea is not innovative, so I'm not giving any credit. Most, if not all ideas have been thought of in some form at some point in time in the past. This is a painting made in 1574.
Your "good ideas" are still worth shit without the craft to bring them to completion, ideaman.
>Your "good ideas" are still worth shit without the craft to bring them to completion, ideaman.
good thing teamwork exists then. And guess who is the auteur of the work?( protip, not the codemonkeys)
>GPT-3 post.
>Everyone can be an ideaman
no. I work in a creative field and this is just cope from people who ironically can't have a good idea if their life depended on it
i agree kurasov is shit
>kurasov is shit
first time I'm aware of this dude, it's shit-ish, but good at the same time. The dude is not straight up garbage, he has some kind of talent at least
I agree. I don't want the first thing I think when I see a painting to be "that's clever", rather "that's inspiring". This is why
is not great art.
Tangent, but I've read that cave art was supposed to simulate movement and rhythm, since you could only see so much in the dark with oil lights. So I thought how cubism is kind of similar, but compressed, though maybe this has already been observed.
Nude or semi nude women in art has long traditions, tbh.
this painting is from 2005
It's great, but the resident /misc/yps in this thread will no doubt say it's not "symmetrical" or "harmonious" enough, which are euphemisms for "lacks swastikas and huge pectoral muscles".
You're stupid. Of course there's symmetry and harmony in that painting, which is why it is objectively better than most other modern art. A painting that was even more harmonious and symmetrical would be even better, objectively speaking. Also, I like how you put harmony and symmetry in quotes, as if these concepts do not exist. Talk about regression...
Soviet art was, for the most part, superb. The lack of swastikas is irrelevant. You are projecting and strawmanning, silly.
That painting was made in 2005, which completely dismantles your argument that modern art is bad.
So why do you keep making these threads you fricking loser?
>completely dismantles your argument that modern art is bad
I literally said that I am not dismissing modern art.
>I am not dismissing modern art. I just said that modern art can be good, as long as it contains elements that are objectively good (harmony, proportions, etc).
Read it again stupid
Like I said, all you are doing is projecting and strawmanning. I have nothing more to say. Keep seething.
>I literally said that I am not dismissing modern art.
And yet you keep making these threads. And the reason I know it's you is because you are the same guy every time who uses the words "harmony", "symmetry" and "objectively better".
You're not fooling anyone, stop making these threads, you literally get BTFO'd every single time.
>And the reason I know it's you is because you are the same guy every time who uses the words "harmony", "symmetry" and "objectively better".
You're right. I have made similar concepts about 3 or 4 times now. But I'm not the one making these thread. I'm just glad people make them. Don't make me post a screenshot to prove that it's not me. I won't do that.
I accept your surrender. It's good to know that you have no arguments left other than accusing me of spam.
>But I'm not the one making these thread
Sure you aren't lmao. Kiss my ass.
>I literally said that I am not dismissing modern art.
You should be. Modern art is trash, sometimes even literally.
https://vimeo.com/101804860
>being THIS much of a homosexual
Sure, he's the homosexual, and not all the homo-fascists wanting to see statues of Aryan ubermensch everywhere lol.
this might as well be considered traditionalist by 2022. modern art =/= contemporary art
>modern art =/= contemporary art
what do you think modern art is? yes this is a traditionalist painting.
this
is VERY modern. look closer people didn't paint like this in the past.
not BRAP-pilled enough 2bh
Kind of boring
banksy is definitely one of the greatest artists of our generation
this is a painting from last year
fricking zoomers
you couldn't do better
I don’t know what gay point you’re trying to make but this shit is modern garbage
its a lovely painting. very warm and soft and feels like home and family. you can't paint better.
makes me so sad, whoever painted this probably thought they were doin art
None of the people can even say what is wrong with the painting, like you they are just kvetching Hitlerites.
lmao moron. how is that not art?
And it sucks
This art is kind of ugly but the scene itself is comfy
Greek statues showing genitals isn't anything new.
Nude sculpture has always been highly contentious, with many viewing it as trashy.
This is especially true in the renascence.
Donatello's David was notorious for being too erotic, it wasn't even publicly displayed.
At the end of the day, we're all the same reactionary meat bags looking for ways to be mad at the next generation.
I'm still waiting for the author's name.
>Why is modern art so trashy?
Lack of ambition for transcendent projects, most skyscrapers will surely not survive the following centuries.
Spanish cathedral is Gaudi variation or organic architecture and is peak kino. Wallmart mentality killed art, artists just adapted to a society that doesn't want to create great projects.
And even if there is an ambition from any kind of artist, the religious organizations deny it just because it's a repackage or new, and can possible lead to blasfemy.
The only doors open to these artists are the Spiritual But Not Religious/New Age movements but they are full of nihilistic fake gurus. Still they don't have any general respect from society.
What a paradox we're living.
Well, religious persons actually have carried over their shoulders most of monumental and innovative buildings of modern times.
that statue looks like trash
we lack leadership and are drifting away from our cultural core.
Putting aside the Money Laundering industry created after WW2, most of modern art is meant to be experimental.
Artists and architects were tired of the same forms and shapes, the same classical or medieval forms and their ripoffs, they wanted to create new styles and new artistic ideas and philosophies for new times.
>Artists and architects were tired of the same forms and shapes
well, normal people weren't.
>the arts should say frick any advancement or development of the form and just cater to a bunch of mongoloid philistines
K
all elitism should be interpreted as a bunch of homosexuals asking for their own violent eradication. if you produce shit the average guy does not like, then that's it, you are worthless, go takeup pigfarming. reacting to this state of affairs with an outburst of elitist drivel should be grounds of liveleak-worthy lynching.
What a moronic justification. No you coombrain you weren't getting a new style each hour in the past but neither are you now. Stop pretending that the dichotomy lies here.
>experimental
Theyre lazy. And no i dont mean the „block shaped“ ones. Those are all obvious.
Im talkimg about the „inspired“ ones with their organic shapes.
This shit may have been novel when Zaha Hadit did it but now it isnt, not because its been done before, but how easy it is.
My girlfriend studies architecture.
Try Rhino and Grasshopper.
Those „inspired“ and „groundbreaking „ shapes are literally what happens if you frick around with a few sliders in Grasshopper.
Its the architectual equivalent of 15 year old me fricking around with Powerpoint and discovering flashy scene transitions.
Or a child pressing random keys on a synthesizer.
It might look fancy for someone who has no fricking clue about it but a chimp could do it.
The only ones deserving of any credit here are the poor engineers who have to construct that garbage (fun fact: most of tjose designs are actually just plastic or aliminium panels stapled to yet another box, Loos must be spinning in his grave)
agree, why she has black features
Naked lady!
if the art in question makes my dick hard it is therefore good in essence.
just because you don't like the style don't mean it's trash
modern refers to the 20th century
it's very lmaoable that she has a dobule set of eyebrows, like, c'mon now
Face looks bad, and tbh simple slit would look better than detailed one.
I don't think that modern art is bad by virtue of not being classical. Art that forces the onus of meaning onto the observer is lazy and pretentious. But there is art being made that is fun to look at and interesting to study.
Very risque but I don't think it's trashy.
ugh so barbaric...
Nice breasts
who said modern art is shit?
Dali exists, so there's no need to make this painting. Or is this logic only appliable to art after a certain date?
This guy’s stuff is pretty much the only exception I can think of to the statement “modern art is shit”.
>the only exception I can think of
Which is proof you don't really care about art at all. There's plenty of good contemporary art; you, like half this thread, just don't care.
This is probably the first modern art image that actually is not shit, take notes modernists
I wouldn't call that trashy and it's fairly impressive, albeit soulless. That is probably in the top 5% of modern artworks.
I don't really think that's trashy anon. In a way, it's kind of beautiful. Speaking as a Christian, while it's immodest, yes, there's something to be stated about the beauty and natural attractiveness of the female form. Michaelangelo's David shows the opposite, the beauty the male form is capable of.
You have decided that you hate the category of "modern art" because it suits your politics.
The purpose of art is to express some sense or tone. Sometimes stirring beauty is the way to do that. Sometimes artists do other things - produce art that is not beautiful, that does not fit the standard forms and modes of expression popularised during periods of time deemed prestigious - they do this not because they cannot, but because they feel some other method or form conveys the tone they wish to capture better.
The idea that art must always be something so simple as a pretty picture is childish, and reflects the naive hatred for being made to confront reality that so many of you wear as if it's something to be proud of.
no, there's an objective talent drought that can be witnessed in all mediums and started in the 90s, same year digital art started getting introduced.
The simple cause is that any moron with connections can LARP as a pro since people don't really care about skills, only about relating, while real pros barely get jobs.
Modern world, famous for its ability to confront things outside of minoritarian drivel.
If I wanted to experience an idea I would just take a shit ton of LSD homosexual.
Because art had an economic purpose that stopped existing with
1. printing
2. photography
3. television
4. digital art tools
the first killed a bunch of traditional art outlets but gave paper drawings a golden age. the following 3 made art more irrelevant with each generation
I don't understand how shilling for or apologizing on behalf of reheated century-old dada shit is any less out of touch and kitsch than the guys wanting ebin neo-neoclassicist art. Like playing for outrage and trying to own the nonexistent conservative middle classes in 2022 is the lefty equivalent of VGH-ing over bernini and canova statues. So fricking boring.
No aristocracy.
Because leftists thought they were rebelling against the evils of class and privilege when the real evil was materialism. Thus they have done the same thing as those before them but in an even more vulgar and narcissistic form.
Tracy Emin's bed thing was incredibly moving, at least that's what the cleaning lady said as she tidied up her room, hoovered, and changed the sheets.
some classic modern art
You all view nudity through a primitive lens - it is natural beauty personified. Humanity is so obsessed with sex that nudity only creates appetites for them, instead of charging emotions and thought.
> it is natural beauty personified.
because of sex. the reason you find nudity so beautiful is because its aesthetically pleasing to look at. and the reason for that is sex.
Motivated error.
there's also the fact that the human body is recognized by dedicated, ancient circuits in the brain which are very exigent and hard to fool. producing a lifelike image of a human is a major demonstration of ability. for instance Rubens totally failed at it.
Read Oswald Spengler.
To put it simply, the artistic possibilities of culture, where various arts are living forms, gradually exhausts those possibilities by actualizing them. The Last Supper has already been done. There is no doing it again. Since the high arts, sculpture, theater, poetry, oil painting, and music (classical music) have already culminated, what's left for the body of culture is reshaping what's been done. And before that even begins, first "experimentalism" happens (modern art). Cubism, and all that.
This lack of creativity is basically postmodernism: it's all been done. At first, it's somewhat "clever" and done by traditionally skilled artists. But over time, it reveals itself to be a philosophy which hides what it is: a total death of originality. Eventually, this cascades to the point where it stops being a novel subversion (say, Duchamp's 'readymades') and becomes the norm. And the norm becomes a death of actual skill.
For this same reason, and because of the prevailing cosmopolitan leftist attitude which incidentally took dominance, art itself has come to mean subversive, revolting, shocking, and disgusting. The artist of today has been deceived into thinking that to be artistic in the true sense is to be like that: a rebel of some sorts. This is plainly false, but it's what makes new art so ugly in all mediums, from music to most apparently: painting and sculpture. Previously, art was not a subversion of society's values, but an expression par excellence of them. Thus, Haydn, Mozart, Rembrandt...
This doesn't mean great art is no longer possible, just that living art forms based on building and reacting to previous work have died. You can find someone that can paint like the old masters, but it's essentially incidental.
Cause you're not looking hard enough.
>Why is modern art so trashy?
Because classic art is about the depiction of an idea, like beauty or strengh. Nothing sexual about them, even when they are naked. It's all about the intentions of the artist.
When the artist intends to make it sexual, it becomes trashy and not art anymore.
Read Schopenhauer, he described it pretty good.
I can guarantee 100% you were raised by a single mom or a beta dad.
Not true, why do you think that
He's a gay
Art always reflects the spirit of humanity. Art was great up til the early 20th century. After the european World Wars, you can see it degenerating. This can be observed right after WW1. After WW2, things turned completely sour. The culture gradually shifted to meaningless materialism and to boot, globohomosexual started ramping up as well. Nowadays art is perverted and meant to shock, put people into disgust and outrage. People who criticize the low quality art - which does not represent anything - are accused of "not getting it" by pretentious blue haired individuals all while gallery owners and art dealers are laughing their asses off 'cause they can sell a possibly even literal piece of shit at this point for millions. Current art shows us that the collective human spirit has become broken and schizo. Society is sick and this is reflected in art.
https://vimeo.com/549715999
Proof?
No it's still the same but to those that previously held one of the most prestigious artists in the whole western world, had now turned to absurdism.
That's straight porn not art.
Art has always been shit.
I like it
Modern everything is trashy. I got called a "fricking shithead" at my office job today. On the way home people were blasting Black person rap with their windows down. There's a fat chick in short shorts and a tank top outside my window right now.
You will then sputter out something incoherent about trannies and post an ugly looking basedjak.
My favorite is when they post the /misc/jak and try to say that it's actually you