It is amazing that there is a philoshipical movement that is just brainlets too stupid to see art as anything but propaganda. Literally just wanting art to a be a photo.
It is amazing that there is a philoshipical movement that is just brainlets too stupid to see art as anything but propaganda.
>tfw you agree with a homosexual but have to be angry out of spite
It's a hard life
I get it anon, it ain't honest living
>Literally just wanting art to a be a photo.
You can make art that BOTH contains symbolism AND is not shit. You don't get to just weasle out of the fact that you have no talent and provide nothing of value by throwing around buzzwords like 'abstract' and 'meaning. A human shit is 'abstract' and has 'meaning', but I don't want to look at it, it does not entitle you to any monetary reward, and the person that heaved it out does not have any talent because of it.
>art must be realistic or its le bad
you will never get it
Not him but the one on the right is ugly and if I stare at it long enough makes me feel uneasy. I don't like it.
Look at it a little longer. It’s supposed to be painful and it is. It’s quite beautiful in a sense
I think people like you and baldy get a rise out of making ugly art that inspires negative emotions in people the same way that users of this website like to post gross porn to shock people. No one said it has to be realistic but it should look good in every sense of the word in that it inspires good feelings too.
Art is not supposed to make you feel necessarily good. Art is the manifestation of free expression into a medium (be it words, paintings or sound) that has been deliberately shaped or worked by human beings into the expression of freedom. Your search for “good feelings” directly leads you to a limitation of that expression.
Some things simply shouldn't be expressed. I think that's common sense. Deliberately being vulgar and gross just for the sake of it, which is what the most offensive examples of modern art are, is not ok. To me anyway.
>Deliberately being vulgar and gross just for the sake of it
Like this?
I get that you feel that way but I hope you understand my point that there is some vulgar or seemingly ugly art out there that is necessary for the proliferation of truth within beauty. The latter is what we are all interested in of course.
I wouldn't put that in my living room, nor would I comission that into a public building. However art depicting uglier things in life absolutely has its place in galleries and museums.
>Art is the manifestation of free expression
modern concept
Romantic concept
>manifestation of free expression
This is a fairly recent concept, only really coming up in the modern period. Art, for essentially all of human history, is the act of fitting things together (as evident in the original Latin use of the word). An artist is a person who skillfully fits together concepts, ideas, colors, shapes, emotions, material, etc. to create an object that transcends its materials. We still use the word art in this way, when we think of the art of winemaking, or an artisan chair maker. An artist creates beauty and transcendence.
K. I have the free expression to say it looks like shit tho.
>what is pathos
>stare at it long enough makes me feel uneasy
Pussy ass whiteboi
Has there ever been a bigger snowflake than the guy that becomes physically sick from looking at modern art?
That piece is meant to be nauseating, however THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE PIECE. I think, sometimes art pieces can portray negative feelings too.
this vibrant urban mural is too spicy for me yes
> art should be pretty and make me comfortable
Unironically yes, excited maybe?
Saw something like this in the Portland Art Museum except it was a sculpture of a little girl about to be orally raped by a pig (the animal) and the pig was saying something like "If you tell i'll hurt mommy and daddy". I don't know if the artist was dealing with some trauma or something but it's just a long line of examples of some deranged weirdo creating something obscene and putting it up for display in public.
>excited maybe?
wow, so conservatards are the same as capeshit fans and funko pop collectors?
ZOMG!! THIS MOVIES IS SOOOO EXCITING!!!! CAN'T WAIT TO BE EXCITED AFTER BUYING THOSE PLASTIC FIGURINES!!!!
The issue isn't that they're excited or happy about something. It's that they have bad taste. Is that it? Is that the message? Don't be happy?
conservatards be like
>life is supposed to be hard work, sacrifice, sweat, blood, suffering
>bro, this painting doesn't make me HAPPY???? I am supposed to be HAPPY!!! HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hippies smoking weed just want to be happy, are you with them?
leftchuds be like
>imagining a person who doesn't exist and getting mad at them
Do you have any real response?
>imagining a person who doesn't exist and getting mad at them
Isn't that half the bible?
you had the change to bring your point of view, but your tacit reply just confirmed you are one of those incoherent conservatards homosexual who change the narrative sentence to sentence because they've been found out
I've been consistent. I said I don't like this art and a lot of other people don't either. The fact is causes this reaction in so many people makes me think it is in some sense "bad". Just a feeling.
I don't know if this is depicting a real event. Looks like it was hard to make and some skill was involved. Not something I'd want hanging on the wall necessarily but I can see why someone would appreciate it.
A despiction of ~~*Judith*~~ cutting Holofernes head off.
>Chosen people gets conquered, again, by foreigner chad.
>There's this gal, Judith, so hot the reptilian G-D of Israel sends an angel to give erectile disfunction to his husband.
>The angel explains: there's a reason for Judith to be so hot and to keep her a virgin. G-D works in misterious ways.
>Holofernes sees Judith and decides she'll be his.
>Bones her, unlike her limp dick now dead husband.
>After the deed is done, Judith cuts his captor head.
>Judith returns to her hometown but gets ostracized for cucking his dead husband with a goy.
>That was the divine plan.
You forgot to mention Holofernes was a warlord about to conquer Israel and she saved them.
Right.
I read the Sacher Masoch play on it. Found it unfair on her at first. She saved ~~*them*~~ and they pay her back with shunning.
On the other hand the "I don't know why an Angel was wienerblocking my husband, but now he's dead." part is what I consider literary.
t. loosh extracting israelite subhuman mongrel ape
Is that your only argument against modern art? You don't like it?
>>art must be realistic or its le bad
Depends what you mean by realistic, but basically yes.
>food has to taste good or it is, LE BAD!
Yes
Okay, so what for you is the cut-off of being "unrealistic" enough to be good?
You dislike Picasso but you like Dali, so evidently you like some surreal art. Do you like, say, Croatian Naive Art?
whoever took time to paint this is also disturbed
facts
>whoever took time to paint this is also disturbed
Ivan Večenaj was a farmer who painted rural and Christian motifs, you literally can't get any more Trad than that lmfao
>one guy who paints weird stuff occasionally painted kinda wholesome but still weird stuff
alright
btw idc what "trad" is here
Read what a wrote morons. You can create art depicting something that isnt real, like a dragon for example, but you can create a beautiful artistic peice of a dragon or a bad one. Look at this painting of Queen Elizabeth I, different scenes from the armarda were not literally happening at the same time visible through windows over her shoulders, but this peice of art contains symbolism AND is painted well. Obviously it does not reach the heights of perfection seen in the rennaissance, but the artist has used skill to paint things properly, and if he had completely fricked it so things were the wrong colour and shape and didn't look like what they were supposes to look like, then I would rightfully say its shit.
>a gigantic cross levitating over the earth
looks like pretty surreal.
But I guess when things are not realistic and they depict your mental delusions it's fair game
Italian fascism made some good arts
All fascist movements made good arts, including music, poetry and paintings. It's just that fascism was suppressed in a way that socialism never was after WW2, and all intellectuals disappeared from whatever fascist "movement" was left. Reactionary ways of thinking was huge among university students back in the day
The Soviets had some neat composers.
That anon sounds like a redditor
The post is from 2012, all pre 2016 IQfy is reddit now
I fricking hate that you're kind of right. Electiongays are the worst.
It’s does sound a ton like a Redditor tbqh, the way the post is written
No shit, he likes dragons.
Conservatism isn't a movement though. It's just controlled opposition with no ideological grounding except the shallow wariness of the newest Current Thing
>uhhh I'm not a bigot, I support homosexuals raping kids, but them sacrificing AND raping kids, now that's too far
Also, this. Frick ~~*conservatism*~~ fascism is the way.
You want art to be ugly and vulgar because that's a reflection of your soul.
>poltards actually think this way
More modern art for the spiritually dead OP
That's real fricking neato
Its novelty wears off rapidly.
The modern art rendition of that would just be a skull with cows blood poured on it and some text next to it explaining how it's actually a tree.
https://vimeo.com/128428182
>Why would a guy who could paint the picture on the left choose to paint the picture on the right?
Joker mode
>muh trannies
Rent free.
Not reading the rest of the blogpost.
I'm sexually attracted to the women in Picasso's paintings. I like how their body is turned into simple shapes and how objectified they are. They also look so soft to the touch.
see this one's not overtly offensive and it has booba
you can be a little quirky like picasso that's alright
The joke is that keeping the zombie of dada going an entire century after it was new is not the slightest bit less kitsch than neo-neoromanticism. The cult of novelty is just a sign of the times, when art has nowhere to develop (or maybe it would be more accurate to say change) organically due to artistic sterility in that time and place, shock value is often thought to be a good substitute for true inspiration. Yet exactly due to its ersatz nature it will never not be able to become anything more than a testament to the fads sloshing around in the particular artistic milieu it was created in.
underrated post.
>The morons on this thread who don't know that both pictures are Picasso, the realistic one at 15 when he had no style of his own, and then one from later in his life when he devolped his own artistic style.
You know people can become worse, right?
I know, you for example were much better when you were still a drop of sperm in your father's balls before becoming this hideous creature you are now
ermm life doesn’t begin at conception? it literally costs 0 dollars to not hate women
Who?
>artistic style
The most astounding thing about Pablo Picasso was that he was in a near constant state of reinventing himself and abandoned styles like cubism as soon as he was finished pioneering it. The dude was constantly pushing his own boundaries and was insanely prolific, making thousands of works over the course of his career. He had such a deeply intuited grasp of art fundamentals that he knew exactly how and when to break the rules for maximum effect
Being extremely prolific is usually a bad thing. If the guy is shitting out thousands of paintings he can't exactly be spending that much time on them.
Wrong, it’s more like exercising your muscles, the more you work them the stronger you get
Top right looks a bit like a wojak.
That is a very narrow way to judge the output of an artist. Why was Picasso so quick in changing styles? It’s ironic because the original tweet was asking exactly the kind of question art historians ask, WHY did somebody make this object? But his implication seems to just be that Picasso was a israeli tool or became moronic or something. Even if we were to say Picasso just became deranged, the question of why or how usually says something about that period of art. That’s why people are interested in guys like Van Gogh or Gaugin, because you can look at the art of somebody like Gaugin and when you know his history (that he was a French guy fetishizing and fricking underaged indigenous girls), you can extrapolate some interpretations of what his art was, what it meant to him, what it might’ve said about urban French weirdos at the time etc.
Art historians usually look at art objects as artifacts that can have some meaning in relation to a culture, or an individual in some place and time, or whatever other frame of generating some kind of meaning. There is some crossover with the other social sciences like anthropology, history, sociology etc. in answering what the frick this thing is. Like take Pollock:
Personally I don’t like Pollock, his art just seems meh to me. But it took off, and there are some interpretations that it was because America’s art scene was seeking a cutting edge identity in the post-war world, and when you look at the Soviets they are all doing socialist realism and shit. So Pollock is doing unhinged abstraction, it’s just the expression of the free American spirit or whatever. So Pollock is like this celebrity artist representing the soul of America compared to the rigid and oppressive realism of the soviets. But if you just look at it and think how does it compare to Rembrandt or whatever you’re not actually thinking about how/why it was made.
Pollock was one of the many vulgar artists promoted by the CIA to degenerate craftsmanship
I'm not well-read on the Pollock CIA connection (though I've heard it mentioned before), but I just assumed the CIA was trying to use these artists as propaganda. The CIA was entirely oriented towards undermining the Soviet Union in those days, so manufacturing this particular art identity that the Americans could dominate in was just a minor leg of their overall propaganda project. Much like almost everyone else I think they didn't really give a shit about the art itself, Pollock just had a trendy air about him. I think most artists in the post-war period were kind of trendy guys, because art became such a commodity. Jump to somebody like Andy Warhol and he is just the culmination of this new commodified celebrity artist. There were always celebrity artists, but they were judged by different standards. Renaissance artists were "geniuses", they were judged by technical proficiency and knowledge of the hegemonic representational forms (like, what stories and historical events you were supposed to make art of). But the post-modern artists were alcoholics that lived in the desert and had gone through 5 divorces, or just urbanite coked up weirdos that hung out with the blacks. The art was like an embodiment of their anarchic lifestyles.
Picasso was to fine art what Arnold Schwarzenegger was to bodybuilding: somebody who pushed his boundaries so hard and so often, and was driven by such a pure and unfiltered love of his craft as an end in itself, that he was completely in a league of his own and totally redefined the way other professionals with genuine love of their craft approach the subject.
I think the argument that realism loses a lot of meaning when photography is invented is a good argument for why abstraction should exist. But even within abstraction there's a difference in quality. Francis Bacon's Screaming Popes is a lot cooler than anything Pollock painted.
I never understood why people say art has to be politically connected. JS Bach left no indications of his political views but created some of the best music of the classical tradition. It surpasses political messages and has a universal calling.
>gaytano
>recognising art
lmao
>need
>art
lmao
You’re overthinking it
Art is, was, and always will be a form of money laundering and absolutely nothing else
Reddit opinion
I usually get the impression that most people just force themselves to like contemporary art just for the sake of it.
My favorite part about all these mids revealing themselves as pseuds is when they start talking shittalking conservatives in art when the greatest living painter is Gerhard Richter, a conservative Catholic. And as they stroke Picasso's dick, even though fascist futurism and moggs cubism in every way, they somehow forget Salvador Dali literally had to flee Spain under threat of assassination from the leftist academia because he supported Franco. His last words on deathbed being "Long live the king and Christ "
Or do we need to go into literature? The best living writer in America is Cormac Mccarthy a shut in traditionalist with books that have been made into Hollywood movies. Furthermore, the whole field of fantasy was redefined by Tolkien with LotR. And barring pleb shit like Clarcke and other kiddy diddlers, the actual king of science fiction is Gene Wolfe.
In fact, when you put everything together, it's easy to conclude that if you're not Catholic, your art is pleb shit and you won't amount to anything. Fantano doesn't know what he's talking about because his tastes are mid in general and low end even for a """critic""
Dali was pretty good but he was a one trick pony and fit right in with Americans turning art production into a business, but I agree with your overall point that attaching partisan politics to art is stupid.
But in fairness art is a collaborative effort where the individual artist benefits tremendously from a large peer network to work with and get feedback from, that’s why big cities tend to be art hubs and these sort of values don’t necessarily translate well for people who are more individualist or competitive minded, or rural types who value kitsch and familiarity. But on the other hand conservatives tend to treat their in group warmer than their out-group (with liberals it’s the other way around) so it’s not out of the realm of possibility
>Dali was pretty good but he was a one trick pony and fit right in with Americans turning art production into a business
I think Dali's atomic phase (or whatever you call it in english) is good.
In any case, urban centers facilitate insane production of leftist art of mid and horrendous quality that gets peddled to the massess as good. Conservative art is often quiet, but when it hits right, it's really high art. The unfortunate reality is there's a low tolerance for traditionalist art and those who brazenly march into that field are usually guilty of pastiche and kitsch. Not that the media will ever go easy on them.
A leftist attempts to reenact Duchamp's urinal, even though urinal is still relevant, hasn't been surpased and almost all attempts to be like it are just pastiche - but political journalists will laud it as a great statement and art critics (read: professional bureaucrats without a sliver of a taste) will clap because they see a future art associate to take in.
Compare to conservative art - professors at the academy make them change their topics, do everything to defang their expression and make them flunk and the man that comes out learns to hide himself. He gets a warm welcome, nobody writes about him because his art is not political and his colleagues generally dispise him. He makes a meager living.
But if a charlatan makes right wing art - oh boy, the whole world reinforces the meme that conservatives can't into art.
Demoralization, propaganda and naive stupidity, especially from the leftists who are unable to percieve anything outside their comfort zone.
You were making good points until the Catholic bullshit at the end. Just another Abrahamic claiming all great art is from their religion and theirs alone. I dont give a frick about modern art but handwaving Clarke away as "pleb shit" proves you're just a Catholic cheering for his team.
Nothing personal bro, just countersignaling to cazs3 as much butthurt as possible
But yeah, I grew out of scifi and hate most of it as an ex fan
How do you feel about policial genre?
Actually Dali was a fascist who used to meet with Franco and is remembered as one of the greatest vanguards artist while soviet and CIA artists remain despised, fascists surprass leftists even in their own artistic style
by the way
conservatives are dumbfricks who let it get this bad for them
get into art
more imporantly, don't have shit taste like all of you I talked with have
anime tiddies in a gothic costume plagirized from a 19th century portrait is not fresh art you god damned coomer
after you snort some historical canon and get some actual contemporary aesthetic taste you need to form a few major art circles to make it work
it's not hard
the sad reality is most of you are not really conservative
you're just fash-lite modernists (which is liberalism anyways)
the sad reality is there's like ten conservatives among a thousand people out there and people larping as conservatives online are just contrarian autists
you'd hate my opinions and label my stuff as degenerate art anyways
actually,
that there are any conservatives in the arts anymore is a miracle actually
Modern art like Cubism and Abstract are kino, post-modern art like dadaism is Scheisse, (often literally).
Problem is that the one on the right became the dominant form of art when it should have stayed a novelty.
If artwork is supposed to be a manifestation of how you feel internally we should stop praising the one of the right and instead try try help them.
>gaytano
Where's his great artistic contribution? He's a fricking YouTuber, he's about as artistic as Smosh
>philoshipical
this board knows jack shit about art and art history, stick to your haplogroups
If I don't like it, it's not good art. Simple as.
I don’t want art to a be a photo I want art to be beautiful and leftists are unable to create beautiful things.
Why do so many people get butthurt when you say you don't like modern art? They insist that art is subjective but throw a hissy fit when you don't like what they do.
>understand abstract art
>still think it's all boring and distasteful
gigachad.jpg