/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3612809
>strip art
I have no idea in what completely false direction you have to look to come to the conclusion that pop culture pushes "strip art" (wtf is strip art anyway?). A handful of internet forums and websites do not represent the current art world trends, anon.

yes, there are hardly any -isms to be found, but that is because there is no more need for the kind of art communities that artists used to entertain, like the Dadaist movement group. there are hardly any such art groups. (only example that comes to mind would be the Grupa Ładnie around Wilhelm Sasnal, Polish).

>>3612815
>but art about disgust
George Condo makes paintings that are on the verge of being repulsive, grotesque, obscene. But this isn't new. if you believe that art history only dealt with beauty, than you've obviously ruled out Hieronymus Bosch. Art can deal with all topics that excite people, and part of that is horror, disgust, ugliness (The Ugly Dutchess, DaVinci) and all sorts of genres.

>>3612815
>Beautiful art is Objective not subjective know the difference anon.
nothing about beauty is truly objective, anon. how fucking dense can one person be. if that was the case, than we would all agree on every "miss universe" contest, we'd all be buying the same furniture, watching the same movies.

>And if you had half a brain you would of read my countless points about what the damsel and knight represent
yeah you keep reitterating your shitty point over and over. it's really simple and boring.
the problem with you is, you can't think in the abstract. you can only speak about basic symbolism (archetypes) and basic abstractions. as you say, the whole geometrical art thing puzzles you. obviously, you have never learned to look at rhythm, dynamic, composition and color juxtaposition seperately, in an analytical sense. then you would begin to understand what something like "postmodern" means. it is deconstruction, namely the deconstruction of old, established sets of rules.