/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3283427
no, it's not the same. this one contemporary art hating faggot on /ic/ has admitted to shitpost drunk on several occasions. he is behind the "modern art was a mistake" threads. i lured that same kid into a cryptochat, pretending to side with him and hate all of contemporary art. i asked him if he went to see exhibitions and he said
>"no, can't be bothered".
that IS the fucking definition of ignorance. there is a kid hating on Pollock for pleb-tier reasons, deriving that ALL of contemporary art is a huge scam, shallow, pretentious, cocky bullshit. and guess what his profession is (was!) - a failed indie game designer. he spent several years on a failing project. and he used this experience to say in one of the threads that
>"it is all a game of pretense. i know because i've been there!"

this is not only ignorance, it is absolute infatuation.

>pic related is one of the pics he made for one of his "modern art was a mistake" threads
and this is him also : >>3282800
he's polish, lives in UK now. and he traces wolves in shitty lineart.

>>3275185
>pic related, from another one of his threads

so I've asked about his background. turned out he's a polish kid living in the uk, quite poor. i asked him what his experience was with modern art and he said, he had none. do you ever go to see exhibitions, i asked. no, he "can't be bothered". so i went on to ask him about his art. he was too shy, but reluctantly uploaded some traced shit drawing of a wolf.

this is literally one of the self-proclaimed "modern art experts" on /ic/. he is a poor kid, living abroad, can't afford shit and to top it all off, he doesn't even know what the fuck he's talking about, literally never goes to see exhibitions.

let that sink in.

>>3262589
drunk again?

>>3222519
>Let's see your unique painting...
Here you go, there's my unique modern art.
So fuck off with your smugness because I COULD DO THAT, anyone could paint geometric shapes unless they have some sort of disability. I didn't feel a need to prove that i can do it before because anyone who isn't delusional can understand the reasoning behind people saying that they can randomly scribble on a canvas.

>...that would find its way into art history.
My whole point is that it wouldn't find it's way into history because you retards don't go off objective quality but off the fact that someone has connections to curators.