/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3283512
>this is only something a person who hasn't studied a lot of paintings would say. it only takes a short number of years of experience to know what to look for.

Oh now people have to study a lot of paintings, further adding to the physical barrier. The chimpanzee abstract paintings has fooled abstract art critics, I'm sure they have studied many paintings.

>if you don't know how to read then randomly generated text will be indecipherable from Shakespeare. when you learn grammar you can pick out words instantly from the noise.

You cannot compare literature involving grammar, structure, narratives, to a few strokes of color on a canvas. It is easier for a chimpanzee to reproduce the works of an abstract artist than shakespeare's plays.

>>3238967

There is a difference between "what is the definition of complex?" and "how is it complex"? I don't find it complex at all. If you do, I am asking you to tell me how do you find it complex.

>you could obviously say that it's all aesthetic degeneracy

Yes, I can say that because not being explicit is the point of Modern Art. I can interpret it however I want.

There are a lot of problems with Modern Art, the reasons used by /pol/ is correct or not is not my argument. My arguments is mainly that there is no way to tell amateurs from professionals in Modern Art. So then how can you be critique Modern Art? If you're critical of Modern Art (especially if it's by a high profile artist), it's because "you don't get it", or you don't understand art history (something people like you always assume, it always comes up when arguing against people who like Modern Art). Never once, do people like you try to see it from the point of view of those who are being critical, it's always and only praise, especially when it comes to high profile Modern artists.

Tell me, do you believe there is a standard that determines whether an artist is good or bad under any genre of Modern Art?

The only defense of Modern Art I can see is individual appeal, which is not a good defense because that can be used to defend anything. Modern Art by nature has no genuine universal appeal, other than to sheeps and parrots. Case in point the messy apron that everyone thought was a genuine Pollock, or the artist chimpanzee who fooled many Modern Art critics.

>>3221477
>because repeating established, redundant, sterile structures presented by MOMA is so much better.

Don't you have some more Du-chump, Picasso and Pollock derivatives to collectively wank over?

>my dadaist anti-establishment shit art that wouldn't exist if it weren't subsidized by the government establishment is the only real art

wew

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/pierre_brassau_monkey_artist/