/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

that's an incredibly broad umbrella that covers good and awful work

this isnt art and it will never be

>>1826387
Most of it is shit, some of it has interesting and thought provoking messages but It doesn't matter, just know the right people and even a white canvas can cost up to $100,000,0.0 or more, Museums are nothing but vulgar meat stores for the rich and stupid to be easily impressed, nothing more than a glorified business of lies, "high media for the deeply intellectual".
Some other anon once said that it is money laundering, and that makes a lot of sense.

>>1826392
No, it is art, it just happens to be shit.

>>1826395
believe what you want

>>1826393
>Museums are nothing but vulgar meat stores for the rich and stupid to be easily impressed

so how about the getty center and all those classical realist paintings
huh
huh
what now

yeah that's what i thought nerd

I think that it is art, but is currently over-infected with pretentiousness. Some of it is pretty cool though. We tried to do some conceptual art in high school and we had a few kids who made better stuff than the professionals. As I recall, mine was shit, because I found it difficult to realize an idea into a subtle message that was also nice to look at.
So overall, 50/50 on it for me.

>>1826397

Dude, if it was made for other people to experience, then it's art. If you ask people to look at the last dump you did, that dump is now art.

The actual question is "does this ar thave any merit?", or better, "is this art worth the five seconds I might spend looking at it?".

The answer to that is probably no.

>>1826414
stop making yourself look dumb

>>1826397
OP here, I'm interested to hear your personal definition of art, and what key factors a work must have to be considered as such.

I don't particularly like Koons or the work that he produces. It's very clinical, cold and too satirical for me. Half of art these days puts more emphasis on the "concept" than the actual delivery of it. Ie, they don't care particularly for craft. I've known artists who struggle to draw still life, so enamoured with perfecting a "signature style" or cracking some code to "make it".

>>1826403
We're are talking about contemporary/conceptual art, jackass, context dictates of what kind of museums I am talking about.
Anyway, it isn't far from truth no matter what kind of art they have, there are a lot of museums that exhibit "highly regarded classical realism" that are also garbage for pretentious and stupid rich mongos.

>>1826416
"Oh dear, so fucking intense, 420 blaze it fgt".

>>1826387
>implying contemporary and conceptual art is monolithic

>>1826415
>Refutation
>Lol ur dumb, believe in urself

>>1826416
art is nothing but a selfish act. Don't make it difficult by drawing other arbitrary conclusions

>>1826421
the fuck does space odyssey have to do with it?

>>1826425
>the fuck does contemporary artist Odd Nerdrum have to do with contemporary art?
ftfy

>>1826415

Good try, but maybe debate my point instead? Counterexamples? Logic? No?

>>1826414
OP again.

That's very Duchamp of you. A lot of people have a problem with the mindset that anything can be art because it devalues [for example] the work of old masters like Michelangelo, Caravaggio, Turner, Titian, etc. The thought that a piece of shit can hold the same title as a renaissance masterpiece sets a lot of people on the defence.

Pic is Gilbert and George.

>>1826422
how far will you take this? i dont know.

>>1826438

You're obviously more educated on the subject than I am, but I don't follow the logic that it "devalues" the works of other artists. A yo-yo and the LHC both qualify as "machines", but I don't think the existence of yo-yos is hampering science at all.

>>1826434
youre on 4chan buddy. no one cares about your shitty notions and mundane definitions of art.

>>1826440
Aye, you're right there. However, I'd imagine there was a lot of thought, tests, and a certain amount of engineering to create each machine. It can take an artist as little as a minute to create "art", whereas (in my opinion) the best painters can spend weeks, months or years creating their "art". From that point, I'd say it's unfair to list them under the same name.

Saying that, I'm unsure of what alternative there is when it comes down to it...

Pic is John Baldessari's "I am making art"

>>1826442
But a lot of us enjoy a good discussion. Being an edgy cunt like yourself becomes boring very quickly.

>>1826447

Fine art? High art?

>>1826439
>>1826442
>Stop evidentiating my stupidity!
>nu one cares, cuz everyune in 4cdong is a close minded retard like me! huehuehue

>>1826450
exactly so why are you responding to my seemingly pointless comment

thats right because youre socially awkward, so as is about 90% of 4chan users that take any reply as a chance for them to start something, but end up going no where.

>>1826456
The art of doing absolutely nothing.

>>1826457
look at you using big words and then somehow trying to prove my stupidity by purposely making errors?

you belong here

>>1826461
Ironically, you're doing the same.
If you want to shit post in a serious thread expect feedback to ignore, don't go all over the place saying "why u still repli to me lol?, can't u see I'm posting shit?"

>>1826473
i think i did mention that about 90% of 4chan users are socially awkward(includingme)

>>1826471
You're talking to two different persons, genius.

>>1826477
i dont think that changes anything, genius.

>>1826438

Well, saying that anything can be art is a suckerpunch to the old idea that there are aesthetes (people who are able to appreciate art, to give it a value).

That's like changing the question, the answers were valid and now they are wrong.

For example, japanese music values interruptions (muh zen silence), which was heretical not so long ago in european tradition (muh harmony).

>>1826482
OP here.

Are you implying that people who don't like modern art don't understand it and are somehow culturally insular, old fashioned, inept etc?

>>1826495
I think he's saying that the definition of art is essentially different, so 'is this art?' has a different meaning in the modern and post-modern era than it did in the classical or renaissance eras.

I could be wrong.

>>1826498

You could be wrong, you could be right!

The post wasn't particularly clear.

Ultimately conceptual art created a world in which a witty statement has the verisimilitude of being something important. The works are presented among works of substance and integrity and are ultimately compared when the have very little similarities. Contemporary art also is plagued with a need of originality which in all honesty is purely a novelty. Just because something hasn't been done before doesnt me its good.

>>1826513
It's actually the other way around, we're still in the post-modern era so contemporary art has little of the need for originality that you mentioned. Modernism was the era in which originality and invention mattered and that art had a very personal and profound impact on its audience, post-modernism is essentially the opposite of this. Post-modernism argues that originality and the author are basically dead, that there are no longer any new grounds to push or territory to discover. Post-modernism is basically like 4chan, hip, ironic, detached, impersonal, disgusting, too cool for school, snarky, etc.

"Postmodernism describes movements which both arise from, and react against or reject, trends in modernism.[22] Specific trends of modernism that are generally cited are formal purity, medium specificity, art for art's sake, authenticity, universality, originality and revolutionary or reactionary tendency, i.e. the avant-garde. However, paradox is probably the most important modernist idea against which postmodernism reacts. Paradox was central to the modernist enterprise, having been introduced by Manet. Manet's various violations of representational art brought to prominence the supposed mutual exclusiveness of reality and representation, design and representation, abstraction and reality, and so on. The incorporation of paradox was highly stimulating from Manet to the conceptualists.

The status of the avant-garde is particularly controversial: many institutions argue that being visionary, forward-looking, cutting-edge, and progressive are crucial to the mission of art in the present, and therefore postmodern art contradicts the value of "art of our times". Postmodernism rejects the notion of advancement or progress in art per se, and thus aims to overturn the "myth of the avant-garde". Rosalind Krauss was one of the important enunciators of the view that avant-gardism was over, and that the new artistic era is post-liberal and post-progress."

>>1826387

>>1827020
10/10

>>1826397
Your mom's pussy was the canvas. Your dad's dick was the paintbrush. Boom. You're the art.

>>1826495

I don't think that, it would sound like ad hominem.

At the contrary, I think that I understand people who think that "everything is art" devalues what qualifies as art in their eyes. This is not my opinion but it makes sense.

Art as a european tradition was happening in a rather "closed" area. Even though artists were trying to push those bondaries, like Ingres with his Odalisque, they were pursuing common interests (beauty, virtues, etc.). They judged every new thing based on that tradition, like a new branch on an old tree.

Postmodernists are pursuing different interests so their art doesn't meet the criteria of the previous generations. Resulting in butthurt people because they loved the old tree and his various branches and they don't feel the need for new weird trees.

Sorry if I'm not clear. Maybe it's not entirely clear for me either.

>>1827020
8/10

why hate on traditional

>>1828375
>Postmodernists are pursuing different interests so their art doesn't meet the criteria of the previous generations.

but David Salle

>>1828896
And Jeff Wall

>In Manet’s painting, a barmaid gazes out of frame, observed by a shadowy male figure. The whole scene appears to be reflected in the mirror behind the bar, creating a complex web of viewpoints. Wall borrows the internal structure of the painting, and motifs such as the light bulbs that give it spatial depth. The figures are similarly reflected in a mirror, and the woman has the absorbed gaze and posture of Manet’s barmaid, while the man is the artist himself. Though issues of the male gaze, particularly the power relationship between male artist and female model, and the viewer’s role as onlooker, are implicit in Manet’s painting, Wall updates the theme by positioning the camera at the centre of the work, so that it captures the act of making the image (the scene reflected in the mirror) and, at the same time, looks straight out at us.

>>1828906
And their basis in the philosopher Heidegger's shit means that they have to be historically referencing something:

> He stressed the historicity and cultural construction of concepts while simultaneously advocating the necessity of an atemporal and immanent apprehension of them. In this vein, he asserted that it was the task of contemporary philosophy to recover the original question of (or "openness to") Dasein (translated as Being or Being-in-the-World) present in the Presocratic philosophers but normalized, neutered and standardized since Plato. This was to be done, in part, by tracing the record of Dasein's sublimation or forgetfulness through the history of philosophy which meant that we were to ask again what constituted the grounding conditions in ourselves and in the World for the affinity between beings and between the many usages of the term "being" in philosophy. To do this, however, a non-historical and, to a degree, self-referential engagement with whatever set of ideas, feelings or practices would permit (both the non-fixed concept and reality of) such a continuity was required — a continuity permitting the possible experience, possible existence indeed not only of beings but of all differences as they appeared and tended to develop. Such a conclusion led Heidegger to depart from the Phenomenology of his teacher Husserl and prompt instead an (ironically anachronistic) return to the yet-unasked questions of Ontology, a return that in general did not acknowledge an intrinsic distinction between phenomena and noumena or between things in themselves (de re) and things as they appear (see qualia):

>tl;dr - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHT-xeU1LEk

>>1828906
>>1828914
Ok

>>1826406
>I think that it is art, but is currently over-infected with pretentiousness.

i wonder if you can name even three living fine artists.

bonus if they are under 35.