/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6926642
>again, only """modern art""" has the prerequisite of "knowing its history".
You're still not getting, you shit-eating monkey. I'm not saying you need a history primer to appreciate modern art, I'm saying you literally haven't even SEEN enough modern art behind the normalfaggiest, boomer-aunt-on-Facebook cuts. So how can you criticize what you haven't even seen?
You're taking your whole idea of the thing from stereotypes and easy soundbites, and yet are abundantly certain in your beliefs. This makes you a pleb, yes, this makes you ignorant.
Like, you clearly typed "modern art" or "abstract painting" for your first hot take. And now, with herculean effort, you managed to dredge up a Rothko, the modern art equivalent of Elvis in rock music. Yes, Rothko is boring and gay. No, this does not excuse you from being artistically illiterate. *You are making my point for me*.

Why don't you actually look at some of this stuff, and consider what it's influenced? You know Dali is considered modern art, right? It isn't all baby poop and period blood smeared on canvas.

You could do this right now, later tonight, any time, but you won't. You'd prefer comforting ignorance.