/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>2006417
Modern art (or contemporary art for that matter) isn't bad, you're just a ignorant moron who can't think for him/herself.

>>2006417
GTFO with this Prager University shit

modern art=money laundering

Man, I swear this has been posted here every single week since the video was released.

>>2006675
This. Does anyone think ht anybody actually likes that horse shit?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html?_r=0

Nobody cares about modern art
Hundreds or years ago artists got paid to create art that the client wanted such as religious pieces and portraits
Today artists get paid to create art that the client wants such as book illustrations and concept art
All that has changed is that some time during the 1900's a load of artists decided to do some wacky things and a bunch of people bought it. The type of art that was done is the past is still done today, it's just a boring professional world that nobody talks about.
Look at the internet and all the artists out there. Art is still progressing in the nice way that we all think it should

Modern art has just stolen the title of art. It's not art though

>>2006476
This.

Prager Uni is pretty herp-derp with their "muh traditionalism". The reason their video about "Modern Art" sounds like it was made by a bunch of half-witted bible thumpers that can't into a graph, is because it was.

>>2006738
>asspained fingerpaint nigger detected

>>2006738
I think a closer comparison to bible thumpers are people like you, people who might not be lacking in intelligence but are indoctrinated into believing the silliest things.

>>2006750
No, I mean they are actually bible thumpers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK57RiMqTdk

Which is fine, that's their thing. But just beware that their core argument for everything boils down to whether it pleases/displeases God.

There are plenty of reasons not to like so-called "modern art", but the Prager Uni video ain't one.

>>2006734
>some time during the 1900's
modern art started before 1900

>modern art isn't art
Tell it to Repin or Bouguereau. Modern art is an era, not a style.

Read a book kid.

>>2006734
I can't tell if you're just dumb or ignorant as hell? Oh I'm sorry yeah go ahead draw another fuckin landscape with pretty colors, that's not done to death yet. Oh yeah draw a knight on a big horse, oh yeah, that's certainly a good use of the ten of thousand of hours you spent mastering your craft.

Why do you think Picasso made things like pic related later in his career when he was a master of traditional techniques? He knew that art has not been completely figured out, that there are ways of expressing things which we have not seen before.

Even if your goal is to paint realistically, there's tons to be gained from studying the language of modern artists.

>>2006764

Perhaps he's not using the correct words but if you think he's talking about Bouguereau you're retarded.

>>2006773
you're preaching to the choir
a deaf choir
belonging to a church that worships an entirely different god

what I mean is that there's a large chunk of /ic/ that just can't into modern/contemporary/abstract no matter how you explain it.

inb4 picasso conspiracy theories.

>>2006773

I can't tell if you're just dumb or ignorant as hell? Oh I'm sorry yeah go ahead dunk another crucifix in your own piss, that's not done to death yet. Oh yeah literally spray paint from your ass onto a canvas, oh yeah, that's certainly a good use of the ten of thousand of hours you spent mastering your craft.

Why do you think Aivazovsky made things like pic related later in his career when he was a master of traditional techniques? He knew that art has not been completely figured out, that there are ways of expressing things which we have not seen before.

Even if your goal is to paint like a baby, there's tons to be gained from studying the language of the old masters.

>>2006782
I can't tell if you're just dumb or ignorant as hell? Oh I'm sorry yeah go make things in the physical world, that's not done to death yet. Oh yeah make something that's just crowding up an already crowded world with canvases that'll get thrown out when you die, that's certainly a good use of the ten of thousand of hours you spent mastering your craft.
Why do you think Mullins made things like pic related later in his career when he was a master of digital techniques? He knew that art has not been completely figured out, that there are ways of expressing things which we have not seen before.
Even if your goal is to be in a museum, there's tons to be gained from studying the language of the digital artists.

>>2006782
I want to go through this point by point but I'm too lazy. My aim isn't to make an enemy out of you anyway.

Let me put it like this: art has never been about copying life exactly. Art has always been about the idea. This is true for abstract expressionists, and this is true for the photorealistic painter. A photorealistic painter, after all, isn't just painting the first thing he sees; he is calling your attention an idea, be it a rhythm or pattern or scene he had imagined.

I don't love modern/ contemporary art over the old stuff (or the other way around), but you do yourself no good by turning a blind eye to a century of artistic exploration.

>>2006791
Actually you do yourself many favors by ignoring anyone who wasn't a golden era illustrator but rather a fine art wanker in the past 100 or so years..

The rest of the new stuff is shit on canvas, sometimes literally shit, rubbed on canvas.

>>2006791

Every painting must be judged individually of it's merits even if it's by the same painter or the same artistic movement. That said, expressionist and abstract expressionist paintings are often devoid of any redeeming qualities. I love the painting you posted and I like a lot of impressionist paintings. I can see the application of skill in the use of color, value, the composition. It has standards by which I can judge it's value as a painting. My problem is when artists throw every standard in the garbage, paint a random mess and then tell people who don't like it that the just don't get it.

>>2006797
I was right there with you regarding abstract expressionism for a long time. Drugs, I think are the best way to start understanding it immediately (this goes for a lot of other movements too), but even if you're not that sort of person, its still really accessible. The great part about abstract expressionism is that you don't need any context to "get" it. The painting is the entire truth if you will. You do just have to put your prejudices aside (this isnt even OF anything) to get the most out of it though. If you don't want to, that's okay I think, but just be aware that those prejudices are there.

>>2006796
>I ignore fine art because through ignoring it I have realized...

>>2006755

I just watched the video with no foreknowledge of Prager university and I didn't get any religious meaning out of it. It might be a little cherrypicked but I think his point has merit. Too much nonsense shit is successful.

Buying, selling and displaying shit like this drives me crazy. This piece of shit sold for nearly two million.

>>2006808
if you really think you need to do drugs to understand a painting that's just the drugs telling you that. drugs don't make you realize things. drugs don't make you better at art. drugs are just drugs.

>>2006775
I'm retarded for knowing what modern art actually means? ok kid. if he can't identify what art he actually dislikes (minimalism etc), that's on him. If you know fuck-all about art history, don't bother posting a completely uninformed opinion.

>>2006808
I agree, drugs, or a sharp blow to the head are perfect.

>I Ignore wankers, and nothing of value was lost.

>>2006808

Drugs can make you see meaning in anything. Take lsd and a grape can hold the secret of the universe. If you have to take psychoactive chemicals to appreciate something then it must have little inherent value.

And you do need a context to "get" abstract expressionist art. All of its value is in its context because I swear to god if that painting you posted was sitting on the side of the road no one would look twice at it and its probably worth millions because of CONTEXT. The name attached to it. What the elite art critics wrote about it. How much it sold for. It's value has so little to do with the actual painting. This kind of shit art is a cultural blip, an economy that one day will crash and only be remembered in the future as an example of how millions of people can be convinced something worthless is priceless.

If pic related was sitting on the side of the road would it be worthless because it had no context? Because no one knew who painted it? If it dropped out of the fucking sky it would still have worth because the application of skill and mastery that went into it. No one has to explain why it is good. It is the explanation.

>>2006830
DANK
NYMPH
PUSSY

>>2006817
>This piece of shit sold for nearly two million.

Because

>>2006712

>>2006823
>>2006830
I also disagree with relying on drugs, but he did say it's a way to "get it" immediately, not the only way to appreciate abstract expressionism. Even still, I disagree, and think there are no prerequisites for enjoying nonrepresentational art. The main thing is to come into the experience without preconceptions about what the art must be or express, and appreciate it for what it is- paint on canvas, no '2deep4u' metabullshit. it also needs to be seen in person, as scale/texture/etc. are all extremely important. Pollock named a canvas "mural" for a reason, and seeing it as a thumbnail on the internet isn't doing it justice.

I already know the response I'll get
>THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
>ALL ABSTRACT ART IS SHIT
>YOU ONLY "THINK" YOU LIKE IT BCUZ UR BRAINWASHED
and it saddens me that this board has such narrow focus, not only does it limit what we can discuss here but it limits the art that such narrow-minded individuals can appreciate.

The only thing Abstract expressionist modern post-modern contemporary or whatever artists have done is shit all over the label of Art, and made the people who are trying to create beauty in ways that have not been seen, and inspire new artists to take up the craft change their label and move away from the word "art" by trivializing it, and toward "concept design""Illustration". You can have your ball, but you're still wankers.

Art is dieing, but the craft lives on.

>>2006847
not all representational art is considered illustration, and what do labels matter anyway?
>Abstract expressionist modern post-modern contemporary or whatever
just learn the actual movements so you don't sound like a tard incapable of describing what he stands against
>dieing
also learn to spell

The only thing Abstract expressionist modern post-modern contemporary or whatever artists have done is shit all over the label of Art by trivializing to such a level where even a child can make shit like these painting 3 billion dollar paintings..

This just made the people who are trying to create beauty in ways that have not been seen before change their label and move away from the word "art" and towards labels like"concept design" and "Illustration". You can have your ball, but you're still wankers.

Art is dieing, but the craft lives on.

>grind anatomy and gesture/poses
>mom consantly tells me to stop and look towards that fucking blue dog
>fuck that blue dog
>dont want to be a french quarter whore painter, sucking dick for Beignets
>reach a crossroad accomapnied with an hourglass
>take the piss and do porn for temporary change
>or
>endure endless homelessness while grinding anatomy

What is getting good? Is it the point in which you can convey your message or figure purely without perfectionist work thats shunned upon, or being an art god?
Will the beholder ever see beauty in me and my stuff?

>>2006852
>>2006854

MFW I edited it for mistakes, and still fucked up dying.. fuck my life..

>>2006855

If you're asking the question "how do I get good?"

Be Honest with yourself. Not me Anon.

You haven't done the hard work.
You haven't been studying hard enough or right enough.

Go through the
Loomis books Fig Drawing/Creative Illustration
Vilppu Books Drawing Manual/Drawing Animals.
Gurney's Color&light/ Imaginative Realism.
Scott Robertson How to Draw/How To Render.

Do The Excersises, Do Studies Every Day. Lots Of them.

Wrack your mind getting every word and understanding what they're saying. These aren't 1 Read through books.

I'm just now getting to the point where _artists_ and not regular people are starting to be okay with saying nice things about my work myself and people approach me for paid projects without me shilling hard all over the place.

Good Luck anon.
But also explore making money in any way you can.

>>2006417
I like this video it's very good. I once had an argument with some dumb hippie about why she thought a finely disciplined piece was of equivalent value to a napkin scribble she made of a punk rock stickman riding a skateboard.

I know that enforcing standards will cause a lot of sensitive people to commit suicide, but in all honesty... well, frankly... good.

>>2006846
>>2006808

Ugh anon don't waste your time on these guys, they obviously don't get it.

Just enjoy the art.

>>2006817
It's less that they made a religious argument, but I can easily imagine that if you could grill someone from Prager Uni about the subject that they're mostly just mad their last famous Madonna was painted with shit.

And the video is cherry picked all to hell, with laughable points. Nothing is automatically better simply because it's more complex or difficult, you don't get bonus points in Track & Field for running backwards but because Art doesn't have a clear goal some people just assume virtuosity is the end-all of it unlike anything else... ever, since ever. Adding more notes to a piece of music doesn't make it better either, in spite of what some metal heads think.

The video is nothing but an emotive appeal to the choir, I mean at one point they put up a graph that is something like "time passed versus how good art is" and just draw a silly downwards squiggle and say "See what we mean?" with no explanation of anything because they assume you're already on board.

>Too much nonsense shit is successful.

That requires qualification, and I'd argue a lot of nonsense shit isn't successful... but I do agree a great deal of the top dollar art sales nowadays is nonsense shit. And the answer is, unfortunately, dem dolla dolla bills. Robert Hughes had a scathing documentary about it in "The Mona Lisa Curse" that is pretty interesting.

>>2006870
I feel better just by reading that post anon. thank you.

I guess my problem is I dont know why the fuck I started, why I missed so many hours of sleep and isolated myself just to get good. Why in gods name did I even do it? Fame? Fortune? Comic-con cooch?

I need to search for the first flame
In my dreams

>>2006928
Did you really isolate yourself to get good, or was practice an excuse to hide from the world? I know it was for me. As frustrated as I get that the outcome of my efforts is little in terms of payment or status, the process was therapeutic and gave me self worth at a time when I was bullied and misunderstood. It's given me a voice and a few good friends. Don't get caught up in the desire for material reward, and just try not to think of the off chance that someone you thought was a good friend is gonna make a killing selling your sketches once you kick the bucket ;)

>>2006915
>I mean at one point they put up a graph that is something like "time passed versus how good art is" and just draw a silly downwards squiggle and say "See what we mean?"

...but what they're saying is true, the graph is silly but it's more or less correct

>pic related

I like how you claim the works being criticized are "cherry picked" as if none of us could go to an art gallery right now and affirm the lack of standards for ourselves. Stay delusional you retarded pothead.

http://io9.com/5811891/scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do

>>2006957
>...but what they're saying is true, the graph is silly but it's more or less correct
I think that's exactly what he was saying when he said "they're preaching to the choir."

>>2006957
nah son nah, this is art my friend.

>>2006773
picasso has done some good work but your pic isn't a good example.

i'd rather look at this.

> He knew that art has not been completely figured out, that there are ways of expressing things which we have not seen before.
but it HAS been done before. that kind of artistic abstraction is as old as painting itself.

>>2006959
If you want to be a grown man that uses paint on the same level as a child with down's syndrome nobody's stopping you.

http://io9.com/5811891/scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do

http://gizmodo.com/5686753/how-the-cia-spent-secret-millions-turning-modern-art-into-a-cold-war-arsenal

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html?_r=0

I'm not being sarcastic or anything, just an honest question:

How can we rate the quality of an abstract artwork? I mean, what differs a good abstract art from bad abstract art?

>>2006965
not the anon you're responding to.
Picasso mixed western and "primitive" art and achieved a style of abstraction that is without precedent. Lots of influences from other cultures and times, but nothing like what he was making. Plus if we look at analytic or synthetic cubism, those are both entirely new styles. The styles wouldn't exist without Cezanne's previous innovations, but the cubism of Picasso and Braque is also unprecedented.

>>2006989
haha.. ahahah...hahahahahahah aahhaahah Go home illastrat you're drunk.

>>2006973
I paint representational art almost exclusively, but that doesn't hinder my appreciation of the abstract expressionists.
I honestly wish you were capable of appreciating it too, instead of pasting a bunch of links like you're locked in some de/b/ate about evolution.
>>2006981
composition, color, line, form, texture, same fundamentals as all art.

>>2006990
you can pretend I'm illastrat or chunbum or morris or any other troll to avoid discrediting anything in that post with actual facts, but it's a pretty transparent tactic.

>>2006993
Rate this famous abstract painting.

>>2006981
You simply cannot. Many "educated" people can't even tell a picture of an abstract piece made by a supposed "master artist" on canvas apart from an artifact-riddled .jpg made in mspaint by a non-artist even given the differences in medium and with possible prior knowledge of the "genuine" pieces.

http://io9.com/5811891/scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do

http://ecclesiastes911.net/properly_prescribed.html

>some of your fakes are rather good art.

>I got 100% in your quiz. Why? Because I could tell immediately which were created on a computer and which were created on canvas ... no art critic would claim that your images were not art - just that they were not good

>Now, is Simkin a nazi? I don't think so, he's just another creationist, simple-minded, logic-hating, religious right Kincaid lover beating a long-dead horse into a pulp. But hey -- he can dream, right? Maybe one day he'll be able to be a real Nazi, with his own jackboots and tiny mustache. And when that day comes, I'm sure he'll write a new quiz for us, all about how great the Nazis are and how everything else in the world is inferior to them. I just can't wait!

LOL BUTTHURT

>>2006417
when they showed the pollock painting, my immediate response was "what the fuck, that doesn't look anything like a pollock, it looks like an accident." what sort of pleb grad students does this Jesus university have that fell for that shit?

>>2007001
>http://io9.com/5811891/scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do
did you take the test? honestly tell me what your score was. You'd have to be retarded to flunk this shit, indoctrination has nothing to do with it.

Just take the test and post your score.

>>2007002
Pollock doesn't even deserve the respect of being referred to as gravity's colorist. If you watch the video of him working it's made apparent that he literally has no idea what the fuck he's doing or what the result will be by the time he's done playing. Thankfully he had some rich new friends in high places to give him "inspiration" for his meaningless entropic displays.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

>>2007001
here's a 1 question quiz, if you fail, kill yourself.
who made this image, famous artist or a child?

>>2007003

>I got 100% in your quiz. Why? Because I could tell immediately which were created on a computer and which were created on canvas

>>2007007
so why quote the link like dogma?

>>2007004
your loss, I'm not too concerned with your lack of interest in the man.

guys pay attention to me I'm a master artist.

>>2007012
>guys pay attention to me I'm trolling for attention
ftfy

>>2007012
>all abstract art is equal
get the fuck outta here

>>2007019
>implying his shit isn't better than Kandinsky

>>2007022
No you.

alright guys I'm done.. you're right.. here's one of my actual pieces I have at a private gallery.

>>2007026
Can you print that out on paper and let me buy it for an exorbitant price so I launder the fuck out of some money with it?

http://www.newser.com/story/177753/art-auctions-are-just-money-laundering.html

I mean, it'll only work if we convince others that it's worth a lot too but if we team up I'm sure we can do it.

>>2007010
what is he losing by not being interested in a bipolar man's shitty art?

>>2007033
get out of the basement, go to a museum, and find out for yourself.

>>2006819
I think you have a point. But I still believe many insights that you get through these experiences are valid. A lot of my conclusions stand up to sober reasoning as well. FWIW, I'm not talking about stuff life crack or meth, more like alcohol and cannabis.

>>2007041

>>2007034

I only patronize museums worth my time.
Pic related from the MET

>>2007006
>Filename
Knew it already but try harder next time...

>>2006973
>later homo

>>2006417
>modern art

When dumbfucks complain about contemporary art and call it modern art, it's obvious that they're total plebs that have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

>>2007108
>muh semantics

>>2007111
So there's no such thing as artistic time periods?

ITT: people who's only exposure to contemporary art is through memes and family guy episodes.

>>2007165
This sadly enough.

>>2007133
How dare you?
How dare you not know that this wankery is not the same as the wankery that came before it?

>>2006417
I completely agree with this video

>>2007465
that's sad because it's a load of shit

>>2007465

The video works off the premise that art must be "inspired" or "uplifted", which is a page lifted right out of a Southern Baptist sermon. You agree with a video that's so fucking conservative that it singles out impressionism as being too avant garde. It has a graph titled "the decline of artistic standards" with an unqualified "standards" listed on the Y-axis, and the graph plummeting to 0. It then marks this point as "art reduced to personal expression", as if personal expression weren't a valid motivation or was somehow only compatible with minimalism and conceptual art.

It's exactly the video you'd expect to be produced by a "university" that thinks 'murrica is a christian nation under assault from evil liberal forces.

It tries to fool the view into thinking pic related is a work by Pollock for Christ's sake. If you can't tell immediately that this image is not an intentional creation, but rather an accident, then you're flat-out retarded.

>>2007572
all sorts of art through the ages has had benefactors, be it the local government, wealthy nobles, the pope, private corporations, etc. abstract expressionism would have been a successful movement with or without the CIA, the CIA just saw an opportunity to further their own interests so they supported the movement, it in no way detracts from the actual artwork.

but if you have some never-before-seen evidence that shows the movement wouldn't exist or prosper without the CIA, please present it.

>>2007599
And its not as though Abstract Expressionism appeared out of nowhere. It around before the CIA was even formed. I think the movement was inevitable, given the trends in avant-garde up to that point.

I love the hostility in this thread. A bunch of people calling each other "kid" and "retard" for simply thinking in a way that differs from their own. The assumptions made that others, who don't see the same value in artworks, are simply uneducated are drenched with irony.

If you like something then good for fucking you. No one else has to. To think that someone who only likes the classical style is stuffy and indoctrinated is as mindless as saying that someone who likes modern art is a drugged up hippy who's been brainwashed by their liberal art teachers.

All you kids are fucking retarded.

>>2007760
metaposting retard detected, go away kiddo buttface dumb-dumb

>>2007760
>Point out that the Prager Uni video is pants on head retarded
>Don't even take a side on the issue itself
>Get called a finger-painting nigger
>Several "muh realism types" make pretty stupid comments, and get called out on it
>"No bully plz"
>There are about four or five posts directly calling someone retarded, about two calling someone a kid
>The outrage
>Also now I'm a "retarded kid" too

Right'o, I'm sorry Kandinsky so offended your sensibilities.

>>2006808
only ignorant fucks need drugs to understand art, I agree with you besides that.

le wrong generation, the thread

>>2007537
>It tries to fool the view into thinking pic related is a work by Pollock for Christ's sake.

I think his apron is a better work of art than any given Pollock. Pollock was just splashing around in paint like a gibbering retard so criminal kingpins, politicians, Jews etc. could move money. Florczak's apron in all its chaos is itself the product of many serene evenings of thoughtful, reflective artistic labor.

>>2007974
you realize the image you posted wasn't painted by pollock, right?

>>200797
WHOAH MAN LIKE THAT TOTALLY BLOWS MY MIND MAN LIKE WHOAH. It looks like he actually used a brush or some crude instrument to almost control the paint in that one. It's still a complete random mess made by a tool but whatever floats your boat.

>>2007983
if you can't tell the difference between a kindergartener's work and pollocks (and you've shown you cannot, by googling pollock and picking the worst image you could find, which happens to be the work of a child), then I'm not going to give your opinion much weight. this is just basic visual analysis, doesn't even matter if you like his work.

>>2007983
also learn to quote posts correctly, also find a better image of Autumn Rhythm.

I'm a fan of Pollock, but I don't get much out of looking at stuff like Autumn Rhythm or 1A on a computer, the scale and texture are the selling points and the work needs to be experienced in person.

It's like saying Smithson's Spiral Jetty sucks because you saw a photo of it and didn't think it made a good desktop background.

>>2007986
Actually as has been proven by Mikhail Simkin's test many educated people can't tell the difference between the work of artists like Pollock and an artifact-riddled jpeg made in mspaint.

>the worst image you could find

I liked that one the best though-It was bold and brash. This shitty mustard colored mess is an abomination in comparison. They both suck but this is just hideous.

>>2007992
oh, which of Pollock's works were used in this test?

"Traditionalists" who love old masters and skill can't even come up with inventions like the old masters did even after having some bland skills. They see the most common thing in old master art as well as the thing most lacking in modern art as depiction of believable space, light, an form, so they think the best paintings would have to excel in these alone. It's partly because of some traditional fine artists today that people think old masters is just pretty rendered pictures and that the goal was realism.

>>2006773
I'm more a fan of young Picasso than old Picasso.
Cubism is still okay thought, instead of the shit we get today in Modern Art museums.

>Go to Pragers site
>'We are not an accredited academic institution. And we don't want to be.'

>>2006417
What a shockingly ignorant man. He's just as pretentious as the painting he's insulting at the end.

>it's already been proven modern art bullshit is just created by rich people to make each other rich
>people still defend this

why? literally retarded.

>>2008338
>it's already been proven modern art bullshit is just created by rich people to make each other rich
except that's not true. it's like you watched Mona Lisa Curse but didn't actually understand anything.