/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3223236
>there exists almost a total anarchy of standards

That has pretty much always been the case though. With its early progenitors it was a novelty, and then shortly thereafter Pandora's [B]ox was opened everything was on the table, sometimes in the literal sense (Duchamp's urinal or bicycle wheel for example)

>which if followed concedes that art is just pure shit from a pre-camera age

Abstractfag meme with no relevance outside of that community. No one here thinks such a thing and I've never met a layman that comes to that conclusion on their own.

>the aesthetic instincts of many intellectually powerful people

Intellectually powerful people like Pierre Brassau the monkey artist and the critics who'd lauded his work?

Or what about the thousands of art school graduates that couldn't tell the difference between internationally acclaimed pieces of abstract art and jpgs made in mspaint?

>there's a lot of abstract art that is unfairly dismissed because hurr tracy emins bed and formaldehyde sharks and cia operatives lmao.

I don't think it's unfair at all. Just like most realistic art, most abstract art deserves to be dismissed just as casually as a thrift store landscape. When I'd purchase a music CD in the 90s there would usually be 11 songs on there and only 2 of them would be any good despite the raving of critics assuring everyone that it was a must-have musical experience from open to close, it's exactly the same here. Music criticism and art criticism are cut from the same cloth in this manner, serving more to promote the product than anything else.

>>3081151
Surely you're joking. You can literally just look at any piece of shit from Philip Guston's gallery of work for that.