/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6569255
>The reason people like Pollock became popular, long before the CIA started promoting him abroad to fuck to fuck with commies

That's not true. Modern art wasn't popular until the cold war, and this was not a coincidence. 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.

>In June, 1941, a Central Press wire story claimed MOMA as the "latest and strangest recruit in Uncle Sam's defense line-up." ... In terms of cultural propaganda, the functions of both the CIA cultural apparatus and MoMA’s international programs were similar and, in fact, mutually supportive.

>Barr continued to serve as the Museum’s reigning tastemaker. His support of Abstract Expressionist artists played an influential role in their success.
https://www.artforum.com/print/197406/abstract-expressionism-weapon-of-the-cold-war-38017

>It’s awkward to promote art officially by claiming that it is free from official constraints, and it is especially awkward if the art is, in fact, unpopular. Cold Warriors in the nineteen-fifties often found themselves in the position of propagandizing for American values by exhibiting art that was manifestly élite, and attacking the Soviet Union for mandating that art appeal to the common man.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/10/17/unpopular-front

>...Modern art was not universally popular, and was created by artists who openly disdained orthodoxy... President Truman personally considered Modern art, “merely the vaporings of half-baked lazy people.”
https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/

Pollock and similar abstract expressionist became famous due to the culture war. It is incredibly ironic to use psy-op to promote freedom of expression. Alfred Barr was basically dictating artistic taste, and threatening publications as being anti-American for not liking modern art.

Go find somewhere else to listen to yourself talk about how great Dada-inspired shit still is 102 years of toiletries and scraps of wood later

>>2292660
Kill yourself my man; the only person that would miss you is your debt collector anyway.

>>2249311
the acceptance and promotion of this kind of art has created an environment in art schools where the plurality of students leave after 2-4 years of making macaroni pictures tens of thousands of dollars in debt without any technical ability or the credentials to run the front counter of a fast food restaurant, you lot deserve to be chastised whenever you rear your heads here and I'm glad that tradition continues to this day.

>They really should change the name then.

This board is called "artwork/critique". You cannot "critique" shit art that has no objective standards by which it can be measured (and only pays lip service to its more esoteric concepts), the name is appropriate.

>>2209515
>So yeah, it wasn't a lack of ability as much as a lack of means and interest.

Yeah, just like today's modern artists, they totally could brah they just didn't want to.

They didn't have the right means because they didn't have the right means to do much besides scratch their balls to begin with. Clay is everywhere and is certainly capable of fine details, for example. The real reason is because that, with the exception of arabs/persians and orientals most of these people were still wandering around with their hairy, dark complexioned wieners and pancake tits hanging out by the time white people were building metal ships and airplanes.

They didn't develop realism because they didn't have a culture that much valued social or intellectual progress of any kind, the lack of realistic art is part and parcel to that. With the absence of written languages for example realistic art was likely discovered by happenstance by talented individuals and then likely lost and forgotten upon their passing.