/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6569474
> That's not true. Modern art wasn't popular until the cold war,
M8 it was literally what Hitler was whining about in 1908. His whining was unfounded since he was technically accepted into the modern art school and never went and only tried to get into the conservative school and wasn’t good enough, but that’s besides the point. The entire Vienna Secession that caused there to be competing modern and conservative art schools in Vienna started in 1897. By the post-war period popular art was already starting to get into early post-modernism.
> and this was not a coincidence
Duh it was a natural progression of trends that all built on each other and continuously pushed new boundaries to stay relevant for like 80 years at that point.
> The reason modern art grew in popularity is because the head of various institutions used it in concert with government agenda in a culture war.
Nope. Rich people no longer cared about realistic depictions of themselves being captured on canvas and demand shifted towards subversive conversation art like 60 years before the CIA existed.
>link about abstract impressionism in the Cold War
Impressionism started in like the 1870s and abstraction in like the 1900s.
>jstor
Saying something isn’t “universally popular” means essentially nothing. It only had to be popular among the people buying and selling it. The fact that it was confrontational to some people is what made it valuable to others. Like literally all art.

Madame X wasn’t “universally popular” when it was first unveiled and even caused a scandal because her dress strap was originally falling off her shoulder and she looked drunk. At the time in the 1880s he was seen as essentially a dirty perverted liberal trying to subvert traditional art.

And like look at contemporary times. That one super gay rapper that dances with satan or whatever is both “not universally popular” and has 100,000,000 views. Way she blows.