/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

84.2 Million

>>2748438
Joan "wow it's fucking nothing" Miro

And of course Warhol. Props to him for being clever enough to become famous sharting this stuff out.

>>2748441
Terrible nickname since most st of his paintings were visually dense...

Why don't governments jump on this by raising kids to paint shit that sell for millions?

It's a money laundering scheme, you fucking idiots.

Kronprinz

>>2748471
It started out as one. Nowadays it's established as a legit practice by elite riches.

It's like waifus started as a joke and now they're established degenerate culture. If you pretend to be retarded actual retards will join thinking they're in good company.

This HUEHUEHUE fuck.

I don't even know

>>2748438
>>2748439
>>2748441

Dude, ins't this done just to ''clean'' dirty money? Mostly coming from drugs, scams and other illegal crap.

>>2748559
As other anons have explained, it originally was. Then actual art establishments, fresh in the wake of Dada movement's pointless rebellion, jumped on board.

Now we just have to deal with this retardation that only the most delusional, prententious art students and secluded millionaires think is good.

>>2748558
> you just don't GET it.

>>2748438
Drawing "fucking nothing" you mean.

>>2748438

http://www.markrothko.org/images/paintings/orange-and-yellow.jpg

My art teacher went in full defense mode when talking about this fucker. Its the same as Newman's work. Just instead of a line, just paint a half-ass box. Rinse and repeat.

>>2748438
Bad is the wrong word. It certainly has value. How about no technical skill?

>>2748438

>>2748438
He was a bad artist...
But a great salesman

>>2748558
I would rather look at this than the sexy female wizard digital paintings on this board.

>>2748438
When people painted color field 60 years ago it was innovative. Now it's a piece of history that is worth a lot to own. Why do people want to own cars from 1905? guns from 1700?...anything?

>>2748994
So you're shitsexual?

>>2749000
mfw i don't undertand art with content or elements and principles beyond looking real

meme thread

>>2748997
Simply doing what others don't do doesn't make you innovative. At some level, good art has to require skill, and send a message. Engineering skill is required to build cars and guns especially in those time periods, and they actually performed a function that was essential to the society of the time. This painting is just nothing. It's fucking garbage that doesn't mean anything to anyone, not even the artist, and it was sold for more money than 99% of people ever make.

>>2749049
art does not perform a mechanical function..artists such as rothko were innovative by making art with something as bare as one patch of color. if you don't like it fine..i guess chuck close was innovative in a way as well but i don't like his work

>>2748441
this may be the most uncomfortable painting i've ever seen

perhaps that's the point

like, my ocd is going wild

>>2749129
Nigger, come the fuck on.

Art doesn't perform a mechanical function but that isn't to say it doesn't perform any function. You may say art is subjective but if that was the case, then what would be the point of critiquing it? Art has to be *something*, at the very least, and you seem to be insinuating that I don't "get it", but I don't really understand what there is to "get", because that's literally a white line at the center of a blue canvas.

I don't see how that's innovative, because preschoolers have been doing it since the beginning of time. The only difference is that this is on a canvas and being sold for the GDP of a small country because a bunch of pretentious postmodern dickheads say there's some kind of metaphysical quality to it that cannot be qualified objectively, at least not by philistines like me who question whether such a completely lopsided attribution of value to a line on a page is sane or ethical.

Art isn't subjective when you assign an objective monetary value to it. You may say that art is a gestalt, the value of which exceeds the sum of the parts, but when there's so little actual transformation from the "parts", that becomes hard to defend. That art is objectively overpriced for what it is, and Newman was a pompous cocksucker who thought he farted gold dust, and I guess he was kinda right because there's never a dearth of rich art snobs that are willing to buy water in a fucking rainstorm for 48.3 million dollars.

>>2748483
>>2748471
>>2748565
pls elaborate on this history or post links

>>2749256
>>2749129
Yall niggas gotta read what is painting by kenyon cox.

>>2748559
i was thinking this too, i actually find it hard to believe this is the true value anybody would place on these paintings

Leon Löwen something, 16 year old "prodigy" was even on TV

I hate communist's art.

what're some good art history, criticism, theory on modern art? i've read some greenberg but i don't feel like he adequately justified the smears of the abstract expressionists he championed.

>>2748438
>tfw genuinely like Mirò

You faggots don't understand art history at all. The got famous not because of their painting skills but because of the innovative message of their art representing their historical period and an evolution in art.
Fuck I don't know what do you atists think that it's worth putting in a museum. Everything was already done, great masters of the past achieved ideal beuty and perfection, neoclassical art reproduced it but with the invention of photography people understood that art isn't just a copy of reality, it's something else, abstract art is closer to philosophy than classic painting.
I could continue for days but you faggots are just retarded, so please stop talking about modern art and abstractism on this fucking board

>>2749638
This is like eschewing decent prose and awarding bestseller titles to middle school poetry because it has a message.

You and your ilk are fucking untalented retards who should never have been given a brush or audience.

>>2749638
Oh and I forgot to mention that when he painted the majority of his stuff he lived in great poverty, he said that his art was inspired by the hallucinations caused by hunger, and yet he continued doing it. Not like the autists on this board who want to draw furry porn to earn some cheap cash

>>2749638
>>2749644
>he did it while blindfolded, hopping on one leg on a bucket of burning coal, while chased by lions and starved for 2 weeks

i don't fucking care how or under what circumstances he made them, rule of cool nigga. They are not cool to look at == they are shit.

drawing and painting is a form of writing, but instead of using letters which make up words with different meanings, you uses lines which make up shapes with different meanings (here is this dude, he has white hair because he's old, he has long hair and beard because he stopped caring about them a long time ago, he has a nice watch because he liked to work hard in his time etc etc)

all the art posted so far in this thread was made by illiterates in art which never heard of the ABC of art, which are the fundamentals

Oh god, who is making these threads? I swear it's at least once a week "modern art is shit, SHIT!" and then there's a fuckton of links to YouTube videos about death of art, changing pursuit of beauty into glorification of ugliness, no skill, Jewish money laundering schemes, CIA fighting communism with abstract expressionism and concerned fake professors from rightist "institutes" saying grim stuff.

Goddamn. Seriously. If you could just educate yourself a little bit, if you could just realize that Duchamp was nearly exactly 100 years ago putting urinal on display I swear we all would be healthier and happier people.

>>2749641
>>2749677
It's useless to talk to you retards. Mirò. Kandinsky and other abstractist artists created a new artistic language full of meaning, they are the artistic equivalent of James Joyce.
Why do you think that all the chink artists who grind 25 hours a day and make perfect sceneries and robots will never be exposed in a museum? Because even if they look nice they didn't make nothing innovative, you can prefer them to any abstract shit, everyone can prefer them but they will never find a place in history of art because they didn't made anything new.
So please stop talking about shit you don't know or understand, get back at grinding hands and stop making this shitty threads

>>2749710
You compared a painting of 1-2 solid colors with the work of James Joyce. U r the delusional one

>>2749710
Obviosly hard work is nothing compared to shitstain on a cardboard cos it's "new"

>>2749710
You invented your own language, criteria, achievements, audience, and methods of appreciation.

No shit it's useless to talk.

And despite my absolute disgust for you and your peers, I can agree that hyper abstract art is so far divorced from traditional illustration that it has literally no place on /ic/, and making these threads should be a bannable offence.

Off-Topic Discussion.

>>2749726
Yes exactly, anyone can study 14 hours a day, as I said there are a lot of chinks that do it with good results. Remaining in history means doing something totally new and unique.

>>2749727
>And despite my absolute disgust for you and your peers
Who are those? "Me and my peers", who are those? Are you one of those brainwashed /pol/tards that thinks that anything different from traditional=marxist leftist? Because futurism was a fucking fascist movement while in some communist countries abstractism was considered shit.
If you just hate abstract artists I can assure you that it's not my objective becoming one, I study traditional art in Florence. I just understand history of art and hate seeing salty retards shitting even if they don't understand

>>2749732
Enligthe us then. What does this white line speak? How is this different from any other special snowlake that is so much unique. I ask because i want to undestand if people really see something i can't or is it just a pretend play for retards

>>2749049
>Simply doing what others don't do doesn't make you innovative. At some level, good art has to require skill, and send a message
How can one person be so wrong?

My government paid $1.8 million for this piece of garbage to hang in a national gallery. Not as bad as some of the ones OP mentioned in terms of pricepoint, but still $1.8 million more than it's worth.

It grinds my gears worse when tax dollars are spent on this trash. If some tasteless billionare wants to blow his money / a cartel needs to launder money fine, but fuck.

>>2749756
idk, for I look at his message, and he's right, while you are implying he's not, which makes me ask
>How can one person be so wrong?

>>2749710
>>2749740
You can't, can you? I knew it! It's all a ruse of talentless hacks. Get the fuck outa here with you "you don't get" shit.

>doesn't like newman
triggered af

your loss I suppose

>>2749785
I know it's you trying to change subgect, baiting people.

>>2749710
>will never be exposed in a museum? Because even if they look nice they didn't make nothing innovative
>because they didn't made anything new.
>>2749638
>They got famous not because of their painting skills but because of the innovative message of their art

so in your world good art is not judged by actually how good is it, but by how new (aka different) is

no wonder we have shit like this when it doesn't even matter to be good, as long as is has never been done before

>>2749808
innovative is good, retard

>>2749811
Still waiting for explanation of that white line

>>2749811
innovation is good, the problem is you can't tell the different between ''innovation'' and ''new/different of the sake of new/different''

>>2749812
i'm not that anon

>>2749813
so it's only truly innovative when you, mr 4chan art historian, deems it so? fuck off kid. fuck off with your supposedly self-evident definition of "good art" and total lack of coherence

>>2749818
That's exactly what he would say! I won't drop it, faggot.

>>2749813
Actually you can, open an art history book and it's explained what makes a Kandinsky different than a femminist shitting on a canvas.
A lot of this stuff is connected to the historical period in which they live, the past history of art, the general culture of that years.

>>2749812
I don't fucking know, exactly because as I said there are a lot of factors to be considered, every retard can draw that shit but not everyone can give it a precise innovative meaning

>>2749825
i'm really not him
i know very little about newman and abstract expressionism and general. heck, I used to share the same point of view many of you seem to hold: modern art is the emperor's new clothes, money laundering edition. until my aunt took me to the Rothko Chapel. did you ever see something live and it turns out to be completely different from images/the internet? his paintings are absolutely stunning, technical masterpieces. through my shitty lcd screen they look like just black paint on a canvas

>>2749831
You don't fucking know. Cool, as far as you concerned it could be a peace of shit. If you look hard enough you can find meaning in anything. Really you are not building your case very well so far.

Fine, gimme a good example that you do know.

>>2749847
I tired of waiting so I googled. So in pic related the guy hide peoples faces with white curcles in reference to

>>2749871
these. Wich is kinda cool but WTF was he thinking?! He could take a picture of two people crossing the road and use black circles that would make much more sence. In fact if inside joke is what give them such walue, then IT'S A FUCKING MEME, MOTHUFUCKERS!

>>2749847
First I'm not an expert, I studied some art history but I don't know every opera of every author. Second I really don't feel like wasting my time giving art lessons to one or two people on 4chan, so I'll give you some quick stuff.

>Claude Monet

Now, what has this to do with a line on a canvas? Well, this was the first step to abstractism. Claude Monet and other Impressionsts were active in the second half of the 19th century, after the great period of neoclassicism with painters like Ingres or Delacroix reproducing the great masters of the past with a perfect skillful style. Now, do you think impressonists had an easy time? No, they were considered shit, exactly like you consider shit abstractism, people criticized their lack of drawing, the lack of contour, they thinked that their art was without skill and too different from reality. On the other hand Impressionists didn't want to reproduce reality but the emotions that they proved while looking at something. This is why their art is a mix of reality and feeling, with these two mixing together in an image.
Now, let's go back to abstractism, it is the next step, the complete rejection of reality to represent the pure emotions of men, this is especially Kandinsky. I'm going to make other examples in my next posts

>>2749873
>In fact if inside joke is what give them such walue, then IT'S A FUCKING MEME, MOTHUFUCKERS!
this reminds, we had one thread like this some time ago when we discussed abstract art and reach the conclusion that abstract art is the shitposting of the art world, but I can't remember how we got to that conclusion

>>2749877
Please continue.

>>2749877
Now, a lot of people seems to think that abstractis=spoiled leftists art students. Futurism was totally fascist. As the name suggest, it wanted to rappresent the future, the speed, the dynamism that's why thei operas are usually quite abstract, with the rappresented object deformed by the movement. In this scultpure the rappresented man is deformed by the wind scattering agaist the matter.
A lot of abstract art was also inspired by scientific discoveries, they wanted to rappresent the pure matter, the atoms the realtivism etc.

>>2749885
And this is probably the kind of stuff you hate the most. But there is and explanation, this is more philosophy than actual art. The artist was obessed by the idea of purity, he wanted to rappresent art iself, for him abstractism was superior to figural art because instead of rappresenting a single object of reality, a single little perspective he wanted to rappresent a concept, a pure idea. For example here he was rappresenting the color black, in another opera he rappresented the canvas so art itself.
I'm not a teacher nor an expert but I want to show you that you had a total misconception of what abstract art is. A lot of those guys also died unrecognised or got the fame in their kate year. So no reason to envy them

>>2749891
I'm not envios, just didn't get it. Anyway thanks for that your efforts pushed me to do some studying. Pic related is for you from me.

>>2748438
>famous artists
>Anthony Warhol
Never heard of him

>>2750044
Warhole. As in Holes.

>>2749877
>>2749884
>>2749891

anybody can literally put a parody of that "art" with that explanation and nobody would notice the diference...

>>2749901
it looks so fucking pretty holy

>>2749877
>>2749885
>>2749891
it's shit, git gud.

>>2749891
Funny thing about it is that you can find at least one black square piece in every art gallery or museum. Went to the Frankfurt Städel Museum this year and there was a pretty big black square painting behind a security fence and all that jazz. I wonder if any one of those 100 artists with that genuis idea while sue for copyright infringement.