/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3220291
In part its people taking things out of context and saying
>lol art
the other part is people who bought into the people taking things out of context and believing those out of context things were the entire point of the piece.

e.g. the dude who made a toilet as art was literally doing it to make fun of people treating pieces of shit as art. But people took it out of context and started doing it themselves because its "artistic" and now derivative after derivative without understanding the why behind the original has placed us where we're currently at.

kinda similar to weebs with anime art. While there is a subset of anime art that is legitimate, the masses of derivative shit without a solid base or understanding causes it to be thrown to the side.

>>3220291
>Once, I decided that minimalism was the way to go in art, painted a canvas all one colour.
>Realized that Malevich did this ages ago. So then I thought: why don't I just put up a blank canvas?
>Probably someone else already did this, but we can go DEEPEPERP.
>Why don't I just put up nothing and that will be the art?
>Why don't I just stay at home and that will be the art?
>Why don't I just do absolutely nothing and starve to death?
>Is it more minimalist to stave to death, or to kill yourself?
>..........

>>3220317
To starve, killing yourself is an action which adds to the act. Starving is the lack of action.

>>3220321
Yeahhhhhh, but starving takes a while, and you have to sit there and struggle in pain. That's work, man. Killing yourself takes a few simple actions, but it could be pretty quick and easy. I think it's a close call.

Tell you what, I'll start the suicidism art movement, and you start the stravationism art movement, and we'll see how it works out.

>>3220327
>>3220317
fuck me, i cant spell starve to save my life

>>3220291
sometimes you don't have to do much to fuck with people's minds

>>3220321
Starving lacks impact and takes too long to the point of temporal worthlessness, since you can just absorb the starvation from any point in time during the act.

A gun to the head is sublime in its instantaneousness, as the act is temporally minuscule that you cannot even absorb it on a conscious level, yet the aftermath is so dramatic and impactful that it shakes your very being to see the transition from a living person to a headless corpse with blood and brain matter splayed across the wall like the wings of an angel taking flight.

>>3220336
>dramatic and impactful
and now you're drifting away from minimalism and going for impact.

>>3220337
Not really, minimalism for the sake of lack of response is worthless and failed in its purpose as art.

>oh look, I look at this and feel unmoved, what a great piece of art, I can really not appreciate much of anything about it
- no one ever

>>3220341
yes but the impact is supposed to come from a minimized source.
Blowing your brains out and having blood splatter every for shock value isn't minimalist at all.

>>3220345
I'd consider it an allegorical minimalism and you are a plebeian if you disagree.

>>3220314
you should read a fucking book

this is the dumbest site

I don't know but think of the artist Cesar Santos who enjoys realistic classical paintings. He went to a university where they tried to force him to draw contemporary art telling him that "it's been done, be more expressive" etc.

here:
https://youtu.be/kLkHxqh7SHg?t=4m30s

>>3220525
Lol my mom enjoys realistic classical paintings and she didn't go to a university at all!

>>3220333
Trips of truth

>>3220317
>envious that other people had great ideas
>like Malevichs black painting, the color black which negates all liveliness in traditional painting, filling an entire canvas, which has never been done before
>/ic/ fag refusing to see painting as a medium for ideas, because MUH REALISM, MUH TECHNICAL SKILLS

there is a lot of cringeworthy stuff on /ic/, but threads like this get the cake.

>>3220314
>the dude who made a toilet as art

a complete nobrainer in art history, referring to Marcel Duchamp as "the dude who made a toilet as art" … lmao.

>>3220742
>a medium for ideas
Nigga, this kind of abstract negation is infinitely replicable with zero effort. You might be able to fool non-artists into ascribing some deeper value to modern art by pointing out that they've never painted a canvas black and therefore have no right to criticise an artist who did, but to anyone who takes art seriously as a medium capable not just of negation but of positive expression, the fact that modern art is still considered the exclusive, avant-garde movement against which all other art is devalued and seen as nothing more than kitsch is basically just insulting.

According to this viewpoint, anyone who wants to say anything other than affirm nothingness is just naive, pre-modern mysticism, idealistic nonsense, and they should abandon their souls to abstract negativity instead of embarrassing themselves by trying to make any positive statements about their relationship to the world through art. Denial is the only thing which is permitted.

>>3220742
>a medium for ideas
Nigga, this kind of abstract negation is infinitely replicable with zero effort. You might be able to fool non-artists into ascribing some deeper value to modern art by pointing out that they've never painted a canvas black and therefore have no right to criticise an artist who did, but to anyone who takes art seriously as a medium capable not just of negation but of positive expression, the fact that modern art is still considered the exclusive, avant-garde movement against which all other art is devalued and seen as nothing more than kitsch is basically just insulting.

According to this viewpoint, anyone who wants to say anything other than affirm nothingness is just naive, someone who's fallen for pre-modern mysticism, idealistic nonsense, and they should just abandon their souls to abstract negativity instead of embarrassing themselves by trying to make any positive statements about their relationship to the world through art. Denial is the only thing which is permitted.

>>3220515
>>3220516
/ic/ is full of Loomis asslickers, it's even integrated in the /beg/ guides.

>>3220525
Thanks for sharing that video. It was definitely wrong from the uni professors side to tell him that he should stop doing this, bc "it was done before" and be more expressive and shit. There is always a place for people like him, bc he enjoys what he does, he's skilled and there's obviously a fandom to his works.
Talking about his themes, he mostly portraits people in a very straightforward, decorative and meticulous fashion. It's nothing less, but also nothing more than that. If you put him in the context of art history, which largely defines itself via milestones, keyworks and avantgarde tendencies, he can not be positioned in the canon and sort of runs autonomously parallel to it. His works are closer to idealized portrait photography. They do not explore what paint can become and where you can take painting as a medium, outside of its function of portraying individuals. He also uses photographs as starting points, which makes his art even more technical as it circulates aroung carrying the photographic motive precisely into another medium.

All of this doesn't judge his painting subjectively, it merely tells you that his works aren't breaking any boundaries. They are decorative and straightforward.

>>3220525
Modern art doesn't break any bounderies either. It's just breaking the same boundary over and over again in new ways.

>>3220755
>as a medium capable not just of negation but of positive expression
you prefer positive expression? than you will be very disappointed in most of what 20th century art has to offer.

>the fact that modern art is still considered the exclusive, avant-garde movement against which all other art is devalued and seen as nothing more than kitsch is basically just insulting.
You are confused by different ways of measuring the goals of fields, which have nothing to do with one another.

character design, decoration, concept art … means to please the eye with comforting compositions, colors and stylized, idealized representations.

A fine art piece can create its own rules, be neither definitely positive or negative in its reception, ambiguous, converging contradictory moods in itself …
>"Portrait of Mdm. Matisse - Henry Matisse"

As in most art disciplines, there are areas of intercection, design being close to fine art (Jugendstil) and fine art being close to design (works that take inspiration and references from design, Albert Oehlen for one)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KyGqDYTCW7Y/Tdg5PZR3YGI/AAAAAAAAXco/zBJd6VwrHec/s1600/Oehlen6.jpeg

The way you dismiss pieces like the black square by Malevich is just a snotty negation, opinionated and try hard edgy. You can claim anything to be pretentious. Finally, as much as you may disagree with something, art history defines its milestones automatically. The works that leave a lasting impression will endure. The ones that don't will be forgotten.

>>3220742
>other people had great ideas
>great ideas
>great

This is the opposite of great. A deviantart Sonic furry has more inspiration, understanding of form and nature, compassion for humanity and desire to convey hamartia than a jewish blank canvas money laundering scheme

FUCK OUR MODERN CULTURE. The last half a century will be a literal black stain in the history books of the Europeans.

>>3220771
>This is the opposite of great. A deviantart Sonic furry has more inspiration
You are way too deeply seated in internet shit-art. I bet you have the most basic, gaping knowledge of art history to begin with.

It's like dismissing a car engine for being cumbersome, ugly and loud. If you have no knowledge whatsover where it's really meant to be and how it works, you will have a poor basis for a judgement.

>tl;dr: stick to your Sonic furry pedo comics.

>>3220786
>why don't we just replace the car engine with a splat of black paint

Wow! stunning! brave!

>>3220839
Nice way of refuting absolutely nothing and making no point whatsoever.
You probably think short, rethoric statements are the most effective way in discussions.

>>3220317
sort of been done, called "thirteen year plan"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehching_Hsieh

>>3220845
Your argument is this
>You're too seated in internet art
(I made the hyperbolic example of a shit tier sonic OC being better than a million dollar black canvas, which you didn't address)
>I bet you don't know art history
That's insulting and presumptuous and you don't know what I know
>It's like dismissing a car engine for being cumbersome
No, it's like removing the car engine completely and still saying "it's an engine" and receiving critical acclaim and millions of dollars by pretentious fools that can never truly define what this meaningless garbage rehash of Duchamp's urinal actually means
>stick to your sonic furry pedo comics
Brainlet, I never said I like them.

Try again

>>3220327
>>3220321
Sorry, starving yourself has already been perfected as an art form;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hunger_Artist

>>3220890
>(I made the hyperbolic example of a shit tier sonic OC being better than a million dollar black canvas, which you didn't address)

It's a very poor comparison which has no way of putting the two things in a relevant relation.

1) Malveich's piece is almost a hundred years old, compared to whatever "shit tier sonic OC" you talk about.

2) these are two completely different media. digital artwork and painting on canvas

3) sonic OC is probably nothing more than a tribute / fanart work, closely related to comic or character design fanfiction. Malevich's black square is more of a concept than a painting. You can read up on the concept behind it on wikipedia

The two don't compare in the slightest way.

>That's insulting and presumptuous and you don't know what I know
Nope, it is prejudice. But I'm judging by your poor comparison.

>No, it's like removing the car engine completely …
Turning my metaphor into your shitposting rant on how modern art is meaningless, is besides my point.
You are judging pieces while you completely disregarding the implications and not even scratching the surface of the respective meaning.

>>3220894
That shouldn't stop contemporary artists from doing it again and rehashing the exact same idea to the tune of national celebration, Turner prize awards and $millions (tax free of course, goyim)

>>3220900
sad but true.
there hasn't been any significant improvement or reinvention of performance art since the very first, diehard edgy beginnings in the 1950s (VALIE EXPORT, Günther Brus etc.)

performance art is a redundant, edgy branch, more political than artistic.

>it's always a mistake coming here

>>3220899
A sonic OC is a concept, AND a piece of art that observes (crudely and naively) a lot of the tenets of 2D figurativism, colour theory, observation of nature, pursuit of beauty that has been developed by every civilisation since the dawn of sentience and the beautiful drawings in the caves of France
Ergo, it is superior to Malveich's absence of any of this language.

I can come over to your house and tell you a cool idea I had when I was drunk, and no matter how many millions of dollars you give me, my idea alone isn't a piece of art until it is expressed in the translation of the ethereal subconscious mind into visual and sensual human language.

To clarify, I have no issue with the profundity or agenda of his work, but to call it art is anachronistic, just like dropping a cymbal on the floor isn't the language of music.

>>3220906
>superior to Malveich's
lmao, you are comparing apples and oranges and you are serious about it.

>>3220908
Superior is the wrong word then.
Malveich's canvas by itself, regardless of value and intent, is not art
Sonic OC Donutsteel, regardless of crudeness, lack of skill, autism, general ignorance, low IQ etc, is still art. Just not very good or ethereal.

>>3220906
>but to call it art is anachronistic
then you haven't understood an entire movement in modern art, beginning with Monets water lilies and reaching into todays contemporary painting that explores the possibilities of "l'art pour l'art" (art for art's sake). If you shut yourself off from what an Yves Klein painting or a Mark Rothko can invoke in you, that is your choice. But your bitching about how "none of this is art" is a tempest in a teapot to art.

similar to
>I hate waterslides!
>have you tried one?
>No but I hate them!

You don't have to love Malevich. I have seen one of the paintings from this time IRL. I don't love it as a painting, but I admire the concept behind it.

>>3220917
>is still art. Just not very good or ethereal.
well, that says nothing in all of this. Shit art is art, but it's shit. That's true. So what?

Saying Malevichs black square is not art …. the result of a man who has dedicated his life to painting and has come to the conclusion that the oppression of the given regime on art is so restrictive that he decided to make a brave statement in a medium largely used to praise aesthetic and the beauty in life … saying that is "not art", because you, a anon hundred years later, a lurker on 4chan who looks at sonic shittier OC … you are making a fool of yourself.

>that's not art
well, I'm glad art history doesn't give a flying fuck about your opinion. It is a milestone. Your not liking it won't change that.

>>3220921
>I hate numales!
>have you tried being pegged in the ass?
>No but I hate them!
(just trying to show your metaphor doesn't apply to everything)

As I said, I have no issue with the content and intent, unless it's knee jerk rebellion, but I can't call it Art, I don't believe it's art. I can admire something without compromising the legacy and intent of

I do not like how Monet has been retconned to be some genesis for modern art, even if the water lilies were painted purely to decorate some clientelle's bedroom or antechambre with beautiful tones, they are still an exultation of the human condition - sensory beauty, the poetry of nature, higher virtues, a tonic to hamartia, the refinement of colour theory etc. I think Monet wouldn't have thought especially highly of Duchamp's urinal at all, frankly.

I also think it's amusing how presumptuous and conceited a lot of modern artists are. They literally believe that no other civilisation had the brilliant ideas of Duchamp, or that they are smashing some (presumed wrong and useless) standards for art, which is nearly always tied in to knee jerk rebellion against tradition and even animosity towards Westerners (even though the pursuit of art and beauty as a language is found across humanity).

>>3220944
>>I hate numales!
>>have you tried being pegged in the ass?
>>No but I hate them!

lol, are you saying, it's appalling or widely known to be painful to read into art? are you comparing educating yourself to being raped in the ass? you are a joke.

>>3220944
>I don't believe it's art.
There we have the expert. He says it's not art. I guess you have become the International Prototype Metre in respect to what is and what is not art. congrats!

>>3220928
So your defense of Malveich's retarded square is "it's shocking and brave"? I've been drawing all my life, I can go and shit on the doorstop of the Israeli embasssy because I've come to a conclusion, to some that would be a milestone and a shocking and brave stand against the current "oppressive" standards of the "given regime", and it would appeal to every logical appraisal of Malveich you've employed

>praising a rebel against the conventions and standards of the establishment
>"the art history establishment doesn't give a fuck about you lol"
Brainlet

Also, please reread what you wrote. I never said I look at Sonic OCs, you embarass yourself with that strawman

>>3220951
I am not alone in this appraisal. The rich and monied in the establishment art world say one thing. We say another. Who is right? Do you blindly believe the authority of the current establishment? They've never been conceited, mendatious, duplicitious, dismissive of tradition before have they?

>>3220944
>I think Monet wouldn't have thought especially highly of Duchamp's urinal at all, frankly.
mhm! I bet you've dug up his brain and checked.

>>3220944
>has been retconned to be some genesis for modern art
That's the essence of derivatives in art. New ways and movements are branching out from previous masterpieces. Are you saying, that's bad?

>>3220944
>I also think it's amusing how presumptuous and conceited a lot of modern artists are. They literally believe that no other civilisation had the brilliant ideas of Duchamp
That is just plain bullshit. You will hardly find an artist who doesn't admire the wonders that cultures like the Maya, the Nazca Line drawings of animals in Peru, the Egyptian pyramid hiroglyphs or chinese scrolls have to offer.

also, your "knee jerking rebellion against tradition" has its own tradition. Otherwise, painters like Seurat wouldn't have made the works they made in the first place. Michelangelo was a rebellion in that he included secret messages in his paintings, which criticized the influence of the chruch. Is that an example for your knee jerking, edgy rebellion attitude?

>>3220956

I believe Malevichs black square is an important art piece in art history and experts much like art historians agree on that. It's mostly art philistines that fail to see the significance in that.
I think that Joan Miró was a shit artist, yet he is important and well known in art history. I accept that, it's just my opinion that his work sucks balls.

You seem to be unable to accept that the Black Square is art.

>>3220953
>"it's shocking and brave"
Nice strawman. It's not just shocking and brave. For one, you are disregarding the situation at the time. It was really fucking brave to do that, as he would risk his entire career and being procecuted as well. Would you dare take that risk? I don't think so.
On the other hand, the concept and idea behind it, to me, is stunning and fascinating.
You as a little spoiled brat are confronted with media art, VR glasses, colorful huge ads all the fucking time. You are dulled down by the spectacle of todays daily life, if one was to compare you with a person from a hundred years ago. A canvas that is painted pitch black is not impressive to you per se, because you live in a different time and you have a completely different set of judgement and expectation.
Guess what, the black square, if painted today, would mean shit. It meant something back than, at the very time and in the very country it was produced.

>Also, please reread what you wrote. I never said I look at Sonic OCs, you embarass yourself with that strawman
Oh, you never look at Sonic OC? So how come you mention it?

>"black square modern", mfw

>>3220960
>it's just my opinion that his work sucks balls.
>but (((art history experts))) agree that he's important, so I guess that means I'm wrong

So basically you're just another art history fag who can't argue their own position and hides behind 'muh subjectivity' and the(somehow) objective rule of majority.
to conceal their ignorance. Great.

>>3220973

So here's your main problem: You are confusing opinions with facts.

It is a fact that Joan Miró has earned importance in art history.
It is my opinion that his work is shit.

It is a fact that the black square is an important piece of art.
It is your opinion that it sucks. But you don't get to choose whether it is a piece of art or not.

Do you get it yet?

>>3220291
Money laundering and a way for rich guys to get tax breaks

>>3220908
Oh yes, and oranges of the sort Malveich sells have been laying on the floor rotting since the early 20th century-but it seems there are still some pathetic losers prepared to bend over and lap at them. Pretentious, pedantic and pious fine-art fags are a joke to the world

>art history

Art history is worthless, it's celebrity gossip for lunatics; I don't need or want to hear Philip Guston or George Condo's life stories to see that their artwork is a grotesquerie that'd have been better off unmade or at least unlauded. Especially when that seems to be the sole catalyst for deluding oneself into unearthing appreciation for this work that looks like it was made by a retarded chimp.

tl;dr: gb2 bed gaylord Hundertwasser is wait

>>3220957
>Seurat
Again, you are just providing more and more artists that used the refined language of art to convey their own interpretations of hamartia (the tragic human flaws) and the human tradition. None of these people did anything like Malveich or Duchamp, the wonders of the Nazca are literally highly refined drawings that fall directly in my definition of art

Michaelangelo criticising the status quo wasn't a "fuck you patriarchy I'm going to stick spaghetti in my ass", it was his vision of a better world and more sympathy for human nature conflicting with the austerity and contradictory nature and callous punishment meted out by the church.

>modern "artists" appreciated old art
Yeah, that doesn't refute my point. They are conceited because they see this language, refined across centuries and (in my opinion) elevated to extreme heights in their homeland of Europe, they see the same established language used to express the ethereal subconscious that was used in the cave paintings of Lascoux, the same language used by the Maya, the ancient ice age Pagan art like the Löwenmensch Lionman, the Egyptians who influenced and formed the foundation of the art of the Greeks who influenced and formed the foundation of the art of the Romans, onwards to the heights of Michaelangelo etc, they see all this incredible language and think they're superior for rejecting it and starting their own "language" (which is impossible to read with any clarity, it is entirely subjective, hence why my sandwich could be called "modern art" if you projected enough psuedo emotional invective onto it and gave me millions of dollars and awards).

>>3220960
No it's not. It's pigment on a board. There is nothing figurative or sculptural about it, it is graphic design with some message attached. It uses none of the language that Miro was conversing in. If I belch, then write a treatise of the deep meaning of my digestion, does that count as Music to be mentioned in the same breath as Bach?

>>3220978
>Art history is worthless

Absolutely laughable. You are nothing more than an ant scream. Nobody will hear your little bitching about what you deem art and what not.

>It's not art to me
Guess what. Nobody gives a fuck.

What kind of works do you produce that makes you the judge of it all?

>>3220983
>the monied authority makes up the opinions of the world
Just like the victors write the history books, eh? Peon of your masters, we are not ant screams, we are the silent majority that fucking hates these charlatans and the (((authority))) that promulgates them at the direct cost of beautiful, worthwhile exultations and explorations of hamartia.

Reminder = the ancient masters would be considered pariahs and thrown out of the (((art establishment))), their work devalued and jeered, derided, proselitezyed at, struck off and belittled by art historians' gossip reviews if they were alive today. Half of them would be called Nazis too.

>>3220983
ah, the classic
>you aren't a famous artist so you can't have an opinion
Using this logic, the entire field of art history you defend is irrelevant too, because none of them are great artists.

>>3220983
>You are nothing more than an ant scream. Nobody will hear your little bitching about what you deem art and what not.

More people are becoming conscious of the little clique of self-important pricks that have the audacity to call themselves artists (while they in turn both produce and observe, mouth agape and in awe at a picture like this as if they were under the influence of some odious narcotic) every day. Your kind would be dispersed so very quickly with a simple restructuring of the tax code to include the transfer of your monkey art it's not even funny lmao

>What kind of works do you produce that makes you the judge of it all?

What kind of works do the "art historians", the authorities to which you so often fallaciously appeal to, produce that make them the judge of it all?

>>3220982
>they see all this incredible language and think they're superior for rejecting it and starting their own "language"
Your resorting to Strawman arguments is just over the top. There is enough skill to be found in contemporary artists. Just because hyperrealism isn't a thing for most of them anymore, doesn't mean that any of the artists of today lack quality and self-reflection. Take Marlene Dumas, Luc Tuymans, Cecily Brown. They have a perfect knowledge of the human anatomy, but they don't create Rubens style paintings, because that time is long gone.
Our entire society and technology has changed. All of this calls for a different approach to art.

> It's pigment on a board. There is nothing figurative or sculptural about it
It being pigment on board is sculptural per se, you dipshit. lol
In respect to the body of paint, even a Rembrandt painting can be scuptural. That's why they do scans into the deep layers of old paintings to find early studies or unknown, overpainted paintings underneath them.

You belching or any other bodily noise can be used in art. The makers of the movie Begotten have employed body noises in distorted ways. Your untalented and uninspired approach to what art can be made up of is irrelevant here. It's your problem.

>>3220990
Nope, rather like, you have nothing to give and no knowledge to base your analysis on whatsoever, unless you prove otherwise.

>>3220978
>george condo
just looked this guy up, cute cartoons but lmao talk about being the epitome of the middle-brow pop-artist wanker

>>3220993
>More people are becoming conscious of the little clique of self-important pricks that have the audacity to call themselves artists
croak of the fire-bellied toad from the untalented, unsuccessful end of the spectrum.

>>3220975
>It is a fact that Joan Miró has earned importance in art history.
Nope, it is a fact that art historians believe that he was an important artist. The validity of their claim depends on the arguments they are able to give as to why he should be considered as such.

>>3220993
>What kind of works do the "art historians", the authorities to which you so often fallaciously appeal to, produce that make them the judge of it all?
Similarly, you could ask what work philosophers produce to make them relevant.
Art history connects cultural history, war history, literature, music, all artforms and art movements with each other and distills the status quo, outcome and relevance of all these factors.

>>3220291
It's quiet at the moment. I am going to spend on materials, maybe try to get fifty canvases so I can keep painting if an idea takes off. Get a bunker mentality going. I've some new ideas. What is bothering me is whether to try again with paintings that didn't survive. Is it repeating past mistakes? Usual problems, life is very hostile. Oh well.

>>3220995
another opinion in the vast pool of opinions.
"Opinions are like assholes: Everybody's got one."

>>3221000
Joan Miró has inspired a vast group of people who partly based their work on his work or paid tribute to him. The fact that he is presented in most art encyclopedias of nowadays is just a tiny aspect of a lot of reasons why he is relevant.

>>3221003
>art historians are philosophers

lmao

>>3221006
>another opinion in the vast pool of opinions.
>"Opinions are like assholes: Everybody's got one."
lol you actually got upset didn't you

>>3220994
>Marlene Dumas
rejects the language of aesthetic values to make hurr durr it's ugly on purpose
How exactly does this have any more value than a child's drawings (which are valuable, but can't hold a candle to the vision, command of skill, intelligence, idealisation and humanity of the Masters)


You are the strawmanner if you think the pursuit of beauty and art has been obsessed with photorealism. Even now photography cannot reproduce the ethereality and external manifestation of the human subconscious that inhabits great works.


>That time is long gone
Just like the time in which Germans weren't run over by arabs at Christmas markets is long gone. Doesn't mean we chose the right future.

>seemingly random pigment on a board is sculptural
My sandwich is sculptural. The fact that you need some charlatan to interpret the brushstrokes as meaningful when they are, to any viewer, worthless random daubings is proof of the risible nature of modern "art"

>my belching can be used in art
Of course it can. Oil paintings used piss, crushed up beetles, shit, blood, etc, but that doesn't mean any of these composite materials are art by themselves, which is what modern artists frequently claim

>You're untalented
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E62iA6KCIQ&t=3s

>>3221006
All you are proving is that he is relevant, which is to say, popular. Twilight inspired a whole new genre of terrible vampire fiction. Popularity does not need to have anything to do with artistic value. Simply by being popular you are going to "inspire" people to ape you, in hopes of getting their day in the limelight.

Quantitative data without any context is just an economic stat. If you wanted to prove that an artist is important you would need to go into the qualities their art exhibit.

>>3220989
You are putting your expectations, which largely seem to circle around producing realistic art that praises beauty, against what art has endured, in one way or another, throughout the years in human history.
The problem you have with art that doesn't meet your liking is your problem alone. El Greco was certainly frowned upon by a lot of people for his style. You get both cases of inflated artists loosing significance after their death as well as seemingly insignificant artists gaining a lot of praise and attention after their death.

There are dark sides to the art world, like the investment driven international art market, which also tries to infest the very base of upcoming artists with exploitative prizes (buying early art from uprising young artists for cheap to sell later), financed by speculating banks and investors.

You have a lot of dirty laundry in todays art world and you have a lot of oppurtunity, fresh views and promising art out there as well.

Money keeps you alive, enables you to work, lets you move into a bigger studio. That is any artists dreams. At the same time, the way galleries and investors inflate artworks and sales is appalling to most of them (except for Jeff Koons, the sellout bitch).

>>3221012

just out of curiosity, tell me your favorite artists.

>>3221012
>My sandwich is sculptural.
You're the little child rebellion here. You just sound like a little snotty boy who doesn't understand what is going on.

>which is what modern artists frequently claim
carpet argument that doesn't go anywhere. you can generalize all you want, it comes down to your bias against modern art.

Tell me now, what materials do you use? What kind of style do you usually paint, if any?

>Just like the time in which Germans weren't run over by arabs at Christmas markets is long gone. Doesn't mean we chose the right future.
Another little political rant that leads nowhere in the topic here. "We chose the right future" … lol, are you a cyberpunk LARPer?

>>3221012
>>Marlene Dumas
>rejects the language of aesthetic values to make hurr durr it's ugly on purpose

If you stood in front of this painting and seriously claimed your conclusion that "it's ugly on purpose", you'd be laughed at by everyone around you.
The profession you don't see in modern art is your lack of comparison, education, indepth knowledge and your resentment of "boohoo, art is not as uplifting and simple as it used to be in muh good old Rennaissance days!"

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2015-01-01-MarleneDumasTate.jpg

>>3221017
I NEVER SAID REALISTIC
fuck's sake

The cave paintings in Lascoux aren't realistic
The centaurs fighting hoplites on the Parthenon aren't realistic
The fishermen running from sea creatures in Hokusai aren't realistic
The illuminations of the Book of Kells aren't realistic

Yet they all speak in the worldwide, universal language developed and instinctually used in the uniquely human translation of the world around us and the ethereal contents of the human condition, from its fatal flaws to its highest ideals, the universal appeal and lizard brain attraction or revulsion from certain forms and the higher cognitive functions of our best and most talented examples of our species

Modern artists think they're above engaging with this language, and it all stems from the old Torah, Midrash and Talmudic dislike of the gentile's idealisation, self reflection, pride and exultation of the natural form

>>3221024
>old art is plainly uplifting and simple
>uplifting is a bad thing
>Huffington post is the new arbiter of art with its insightful views on the human soul
wew

>>3221029
>it's the jews

>extremes everywhere
>"high art"
>"fine art"
Such a big talk. Reminds me of pseud from /lit/.
Is this same guy from deleted thread >>3220593

>>3221029
>Modern artists think they're above engaging with this language
I'd like you to give an example for that bullshit. Again, I've stressed that serious modern artists are in awe of all that which art history and culture has to offer. You will find nobody who seriously claims "Oh, I'm better than those primitive cunts and their cave paintings!" … what the hell are you getting at? Seriously, what is the main problem that you have with modern art and artists? Their attitude? Or better yet, your projection of that?

>tumblr image
lol, are you a tumblr fag? Tell me which artists of today you enjoy, living artists.

>>3221030
>Huffington post
I don't even read that shit. Resorting to making things up now?
And nobody said that uplifting motifs in art are bad, you contortionist. If uplifting and positivity is all you expect in art, you will have a very restrictive experience. You are either afraid to be confronted with controversy or you just like a simple, washed down positive experience (which is fine, you seem to need to be cushioned and kept from controversial thoughts).

>>3221033
such a dull response with no arguments whatsoever. literally reminds me of 90% of /ic/ faggots in here.

>>3221012
>How exactly does this have any more value than a child's drawings

highly recommended for your pleb ass:
https://www.amazon.com/Your-Five-Year-Old-Could-Have-Done/dp/3791347357

>>3221035
Yeah, now go back.

>>3221031
prove me wrong

What tribal identity are the top 10 buyers of modern art my dude?

In Islam, they disdain portraiture and depictions of the Prophet. This has influenced the development of Islamic art and contributed to their obsession with geometric design, clothing and tiling. Are you really as presumptuous as to dismiss the idea that the influential Jewish aspect of our society has no influence over our art history and cultural zeitgeist, especially when the zeitgeist is shaped largely by elitists and monied interests and doesn't reflect the opinions of the mass gentiles nor the working class?

>>3220902
"so realistic! so lovely! why can't we have more of this? modern art is shit! hardly any realism to be found anymore!"

>>3221039
if european culture is so superior then why didnt it survive the onslaught of a few jews with large wallets? According to your logic shouldnt the racist, antisemitic, european identitarian silent majority be holding the power to decide that?

>>3221039
>liberal american jews buy it so therefore it's literally judaism
ah yes, the last 100ish years of art is totally the result of these 2000 year old books and not the death of god as diagnosed by nietzsche even though it kicked in around the time of the latter and not during the two millennia after the former

Reminder that only a very small portion of art school graduates and laymen alike could consistently tell the difference between art created in mspaint and paintings made by renowned MOMA fags. LMAO

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

>>3221043
>>3221039
also funny when christianity also absolutely fucking hates pride and the exultation of the natural form but no peep about it

How did you find this site? Go away. We don't like RISD niggers.

>>3221034
The living masters, such as
Proko
Loomis
Shädman
Vilpuu

My problem with modern artists is they are weak, deviant, unadmirable, charlatans, pretenders, we laud the broken and unhinged, the PoCs and the "oppressed", we laud the deliberately ugly, the acidic deconstruction of tradition for the sake of it, the "2deep4u" pretentiousness, the head-up-ass attitude, the tax dodging, the depravity, the edginess, the shocking for the sake of shocking, the projection of meaning onto scattershot, derivative, repetitive garbage, the replacement and neglect of any true understanding of the virtues of the masters in the art world, the cynicism, the malaise, the stagnation of any new invention, the fetishization of the third worlder and deviant, the nihilism and post modern deconstruction of the Western identity (with nothing to replace it but suicidal angst) the celebration of mental illness, the lack of skill, the disdain of European culture, the Critical Theory and Post Modern lens that has been repeated to death, the wankery and derision of the layman, the commercialism and tired critique of commercialism. It's a boring, ugly mess that doesn't make anyone but the select elite and deluded, kool aid inebriated few feel anything other than malaise and dejection at the direction Westerners are taking.

Imagine if these descriptions were applied to how we judged the Olympics. Praising an athlete for putting spaghetti up their ass and lying on the starting line for 3 days "to subvert the standards" and "push the boundaries".

And no, I'm not a tumblr fag. You don't know how saving images from a search engine works? way to latch onto the image description instead of addressing my argument

>Links Huffington post article about your modern artist charlatan
>"I don't even read the Huffington post"
wew

>>3221040
"So uhm...expressive! Such good uh...composition and/or any other given esoteric "big" art word I'm able to pull out of my ass! Why can't we have more of this! Modern art is great! I'm so glad it's everywhere!"

>>3221049
Loomis is alive in our hearts
Praise Loomis

>Pair of glasses left on US gallery floor mistaken for art
Please understand.

>it's not bad art, me and my friends are just smarter than everyone else

lmoa

>>3220968

>>3221041
>>3221046
I never said European culture was superior or immunized against the subversive methods of, for example, the Rothschilds who seized the European banks during the Napoleonic era by
>running fake Lugenpresse newspaper
>hearing from their spy network that the local army had won the battle
>tells everyone they lost, everyone sells their stock and flees in panic
>the real news of the victory arrives, Rothschilds buy up everything incredibly cheap and now run the country's banks

"Christianity hates depictions of the natural form" sure, some sects, how does this disprove that Judaism also does to a much greater extent? I don't see Christians wearing yarmulkas and women wearing wigs over their hair

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheitel

Go into 9/10 Jewish homes and I guarantee you there will be some nihilistic garbage or post modern crap on the wall, some acidic or puke green abstract art.

Quick challenge: name any classic Jewish master painters, should be easy considering how small the Jewish working class is and the excess of capitol.

There is a cultural disdain for traditional European beauty in the Jewish subconscious. It's right there in the holy books and the declarations of the Rabbinical scholars, if you ever deigned to examine it.

Please, $40,000 per semester art school faculty, teach me to be a master like Duchamp. His incredible, prophetic art centered on profound, contemplative themes such as "things being put somewhere where they normally aren't" still gives me chills a hundred years later.

>>3221049
>The living masters, such as
>Proko
>Loomis
>Shädman
>Vilpuu

Your main interest is in anatomic accuracy, technical skills, drawing from mind with construction crutches and tricks. All of these things can be employed, but standalone, they are absolutely irrelevant to art – not just contemporary art, but also to historic art from all parts of the world.

Thank you for the insight, now I know where you come from. It's the complete opposite corner to relevant works and art movements.

>>3221055
Oy vey!
t-t-tax free?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7gzBF9MYTI

>>3221069
>not recognising the shitposting favourites of /ic/

Fuck off newfag, why are you even on this board with your shitty taste in modern scam art

>>3221054
This only falls back on the visitors, which can be complete idiots.
You don't scold the author for the stupidity of his fans.

>>3221072
>these mental gymnastics

>>3221069
>It's the complete opposite corner to relevant works and art movements
>unlike what I do

>>3221050
another fine example of the croak of the fire-bellied toad from the untalented, unrelated corner.

>I don't understand art terminology! Therefore, it must be shit!
>Why do you have so many words to describe wine? It's just a fucking baverage!

>>3221073
>Fuck, that's a good point! Better call it "mental gymnastics".

>>3221071
try harder

>>3221074
good strawman. of course, all of these works are mine (or similar). nice! very accurate!

>>3221074
$1488 per credit, nice

>>3221076
>"Why do you have so many psuedointellectual words to describe nihilistic dogshit? It's just charlatan brainlet scam artists!"

>>3221076
You missed the point, which was more along the lines of:

>I do understand art terminology! That's why this gross childish shit painting and others by Guston is actually amazing! R-right!?

MOMArons are adept at using language to obfuscate the truth that's right in their fucking face. They're certainly better at sophistry than they are creating art lmao

>>3221074
Rate my art. $5 Million. Real fine art.

>>3221064
>I don't see Christians wearing yarmulkas and women wearing wigs over their hair
because christianity has lost the power in the cultural sphere
back in the day women wore headscarves all the time, the orthodox still do it in religious contexts
you've got pagan roman emperors being depicted with sixpack armor and christian east roman emperors being depicted in massive robes that hide the body
you've got multiple periods of iconoclasm, early christians who only wanted to be martyred even for dumbshit reasons like going to a roman governor and insulting him for no reason
christianity is universalist (aka globalist)
all the good parts of christian art exist because of pagan influence and despite christianity

BUTTHURT confirmed
>>3221049
This really ends the debate. You are a Loomis, Proko and other "DRAWING FOR DUMMIES" cuck and are highly upset that there's someone coming along, criticizing the shitty drawing-by-numbers artists you love so much.

With no interest or understanding for contemporary painting, you've tried helplessly to shit on "modern artists", a term you don't seem to understand yourself at all. All you want to do, is learn how to create pleasing works with correct anatomy, basically just jerking off to your own drawings 24/7. I know your self-loving kind. You are really miserable, yet full of hate and contempt for contemporary art, that you neither understand, nor will ever get close to in your own work. Because what you do is copying. Copying the solutions of Loomis, copying the teachings of Proko, the schematics of Vilpuu and the rest of the shit that Shädman does. You like it mathematical, foreseeable, easily digestable, no controversy, no meta.

>>3221083
This is my favorite.
$30 Million

This is true art. You may not like it, but this is what perfection looks like.

>>3221085
Stay mad and mediocre forever

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

>>3221085
cont.

No wonder you were so upset. I've been criticizing your gods, the ones you look up to. I've pointed out that nobody in fine art is seriously resorting to learning from these construction preachers with their boxes and spheres and jerking off to their own drawings "from mind".

I could've known early on that you are a butthurt sheeple for Loomis, who can't stand the idea of someone coming along and telling people to take caution with these books, as they turn you into an intolerant, narrow-minded prick.

And here we are, the narrow-minded prick has just lifted his mask.

>"Oh, I hate all of modern art, because I love my realism and anatomy drawing too much!"

>>3221090
>recent study shows that Loomis cunts are easily upset.

This guy is beast among modern artists.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Pavlensky

>>3221088
>woah! much unrealistic lighting, many many details, so impressed! yellow light from some fantasy source from the sides. fantasy art! I love fantasy art!

>>3221084
Yeah, I agree with this, but it doesn't change the fact that a Christian nation like Italy produced some incredible exultations of the human form. The blend of Pagan and Christian values is what came to define Europe, much as I love Varg too. I fundamentally think you can't suppress the spirit of our people, and the subsequent backlash for the modern age will be world shattering.

>>3221085
>taking the bait this hard
I literally said Shädman is one of my favourite artists, you fucking autist.
Leave this board

>Jewish psychoanalysis
>"you don't like the modern authority's promulgation of nihilism and scam artists so you must hate yourself"
>"art that isn't edgy, pretentious, pseudointellectual and shocking/brave is boring and mathematical"

Kill yourself my dude
this isn't the website for you, go enrol on a Fine Art degree

>>3221093
>defended Pussy Riot
fucking hell

>>3221094
>woah! look at the uh...colors! the um...composition! the expressiveness! the dubious historical significance! abstract art! I love abstract art!

How big is your loan debt?

>>3221095
>reeling back hard
Loomis' little bitch. Nothing is worthy, except for the anatomically correct stiffness of muh Loomis drawings.

You are a fart in the wind. You are too scared to show your artworks.

>>3221098
Yet more whitewashing of the beauty of the African woman

>>3221099
Nice Strawman, bitch. I don't even like Hundertwasser. Go play somewhere else.

>"I'm too stupid to understand. I'll just let it backfire as I try to insult cont. art"

>MOMA pseuds are real

>>3221069
>>3221079
>>3221085
>>3221092
>>3221101

not recognising irony is an accute sign of autism, anon
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713234/

>>3221104
Awww, why not? He's a significant figure in the same sense that all your other MOMAron heroes are lmao

I guess I'll just post something you deferred to unironically earlier then

>woah! look at the uh...colors! the um...composition! the expressiveness! the dubious historical significance! abstract art! I love abstract art!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuMbc1Q2OQ4

>>3221095
>I fundamentally think you can't suppress the spirit of our people, and the subsequent backlash for the modern age will be world shattering.
there's no "spirit of the people" that lasts throughout the ages. Modern and ancient greeks are more distant from each other than the ancient greeks are to the ancient indians (even before the entrance of alexander). In the end, it seems to me like all the patriotic wanking is just emptiness from empty people. If all people can do is post maga memes and say nigger to "save their civilization" then that's a much bigger problem than any actual niggers.

>>3221064
>There is a cultural disdain for traditional European beauty in the Je
Nah not really, they were funding its creation

>>3221111
Fucking bollocks four ones

>>3221107
Science has no place in art debates!

>>3221111
This is completely wrong

>>3221110
Karl Jung would greatly disagree with you
Read his much maligned and carefully ignored Wotan essay

http://www.philosopher.eu/others-writings/essay-on-wotan-w-nietzsche-c-g-jung/

The Northern European collective conscious has remained recognisable and manifested itself many times in congruent ways over the 15,000+ years we've inhabited these lands

This debate was partly interesting. I've had the expectation that /ic/ could really be an interesting forum to discuss art. But I was completely wrong.

I should have checked the shitty /beg/ section early on, then I would have realized that you /ic/ fags are all beggars for Loomis, Proko, Vilpuu and other cunts. The mathematical approach, the painting-by-numbers attitude, no aspiration, just jerking off to your own drawings.

You come here to give each other a pat on the shoulder.
"Yeah, you need your fundies! Train your gesture drawing! More boxes, more spheres, more measuring! I'm better than you, my drawings are more accurate!"
With that mindset, you are producing easily consumable illustrations. At best, you work in advertisements, few of you may work in character design and concept art.
That is why modern art is dubious to you. You can't get into the notion that there could be more to a picture than: "Oh, thats a nice pose! Very skilled drawing! So many details!"

Interestingly enough, I know a lot of cartoon and comic artists. It isn't uncommon that the most aggressive contempt for modern art comes from this corner. They lack the open mind and skillset to create modern art, or have never been interested because of their simpleton mindset, that's why they hate it so much. Or they can't afford to study.

You shit on modern art for the sole purpose of elevating your illustration junk in the course.

Thanks for the insight /ic/ faggots. Talk about stew in one's own juce.
Bye! (I'll report back with a video of me burning one of you beloved drawing-by-numbers books)

>>3221123
I produce modern art in toilet. The nature and time itself sculpt my shit.

>>3221108
Oh, you don't understand or like George Condo! I'm so upset, how awful! This really hits me deep in my heart, pleb.

Would you not hang it on your wall? No? Not decorative enough? Rather have a bland sketch of some anatomically correct bitch up there? Fits the sofa?

>>3221123
Modern art is a joke because everything has been done before.It is just like recent technology where the progress of advancement is in an idle state because they've been all mastered.

>>3221124

>Nobody will pay for my cool illustrations, so sad!
Oh, look at this modern art stuff, I don't understand the first thing about it! What? As a decent artist you can charge somewhere around 800$ for an oil painting? So envious! So infuriated! And no one wants to buy my anatomically correct Loomis nudes! Oh, how I hate modern art! It's all shit!

>>3221126
>because everything has been done before
True true! Animation hasn't been done before. Loomis' correct and pleasing portrait style has never been done before. Realistic, neetly measured nude drawing hasn't been done before. …

/ic/ is the only true source of avantgarde! So much innovation! modern art can suck it!

>>3221123
For the fourth time

I was joking when I said Loomis, Vilpu, Proko AND FUCKING SHADMAN were my favourite artists

You can't admit that because you're too autistic and need the strawman, and you can't understand irony or this board's culture

I'm not reading the rest of your REEEing, just leave already

>>3221135
Sure kid, you were just being ironic. You don't love Loomis or any of the other cunts. It was just a joke. Your real favorite artists are ...

>>3221135

this >>3221123 hits too close to home, huh?

>>3221120
>This is completely wrong
In a famous passage (Shab. 133b), the rabbis, commenting on Exodus 15:2, prescribed that God should be "adorned" by the use of beautiful implements for the performance of religious observances.

>20 posters in this thread.
>4 threads later
>he still posting
MOMAfag has a lot free time for sure.

>>3221120
I don't believe the 3rd reich was a manifestation of odin as much as it was the collective eternal burning butthurt of fifty million burghers aggravated by the aftermath of WW1 and roused by a version of elliott rodgers (except with balls and charisma) and various other misfits like goebbels. But I'd be interested in hearing you discern these influences in modern germanoscandinavia, from a first-row perspective I can say that the public discourse of the most famous nation after germany is the most absolutely disgusting thing I've ever seen. It's good that I can laugh about it, I don't know what I'd do if I would let this bother me.

>>3221120
The "ethno-genetic" angle is a bit tangential is it not? It's kind of embarrassing reading these posts man. Yeah a lot of Jews are involved in the production and exchange of this art, but framing it as an attack of some sort rather than what it is (a complex money laundering and pyramid scheme through the schools that preach artistic subjectivity) is kind of obnoxious. Take the heh pill ffs.

>>3221123
>You can't get into the notion that there could be more to a picture than: "Oh, thats a nice pose! Very skilled drawing! So many details!"

I think some of it can have a raw aesthetic appeal like a few of Umberto Boccioni's works and that of the other Italian Futurists like Tullio Crali in particular, but that doesn't detract from the truth of abstract in the modern era generally being a played out scam long overdue for federal oversight in both the museums, schools and sales floor.

It shouldn't be a controversial statement to say that Bastiat and those that have a thoughtless, eclectic "style" like that suck or to deride their being celebrities first, salesmen second and artists last if they could be considered as such at all

>american """art"""

Why are you all going on about the holocaust?

>>3221169
rly makes me thank

>>3221169
Basquiat was 4 real

>>3221169
He's a "frenchman" you goof

SOLD

>>3221120
The "ethno-genetic" angle is a bit tangential is it not? It's kind of embarrassing reading these posts man. Yeah a lot of Jews are involved in the production and exchange of this art, but framing it as an attack of some sort rather than what it is (a complex money laundering and pyramid scheme through the schools that preach artistic subjectivity) is kind of obnoxious. Take the heh pill ffs.

>>3221123
>You can't get into the notion that there could be more to a picture than: "Oh, thats a nice pose! Very skilled drawing! So many details!"

I think some of it can have a raw aesthetic appeal like a few of Umberto Boccioni's works and that of the other Italian Futurists like Tullio Crali in particular, but that doesn't detract from the truth of abstract in the modern era generally being a played out scam long overdue for federal oversight in both the museums, schools and sales floor.

It shouldn't be a controversial statement to say that Basquiat and those that have a thoughtless, eclectic "style" like that suck or to deride their being celebrities first, salesmen second and artists last if they could be considered as such at all

>>3221175
more like illusquiat

>>3221177
I was surprised too, but no, he's an american eggplant

>>3221183
Ah, I feel silly now. I guess I should have taken one of those $30,000 a semester art history courses after all. Now I'll be forever wrong in that 4chan post to great consequence

>>3220291
To be fair, you need a really high IQ to understand modern art.

>>3221160
I will take the HEh pill, it's easy to perceive it as antagonistic since so many things are passively antagonistic for the gentiles (things like replacing European architecture with modern shit in Jew Nest New York, modernism has explicit roots in Jewery feeling uncomfortable in nationalistic gentile cities), and directly antagonistic (dismantling the remnants of "white privilege" and nationalistic pride because muh six million, muh marxism, muh commodification of everything for the free market etc), it's easy to slip into the Sturmerpill. Modern art is a symptom of the very explicitly and provably Jewish vein of cultural marxism, post modernism etc (inb4 /pol/ tier, I understand what these buzzwords actually mean and they are very relevant when discussing contemporary art history and critical theory).
Say what you want but Hitler's cabinet really did hit the nail on the head with the Degenerate Art exhibition and correctly identified that the purpose of a lot of "modern art" during the 1930s, often made by subversive Bolshevik sympathising Weimar Republic Jews, was to critique and attack the German people with the intent of dismantling German identity. The parity between that art exhibition and the work on display at the MoMa for instance is shocking.

>>3221202
21st C. newly settled Middle East art patrons, roll up roll up

>>3221210
schiele is cool though

>>3221215
I think I prefer the bloke that did the spiders and dogs with big dripping dicks in biro and lived in a castle

Geez this thread asploded.

>>3220742
I was joking, I like minimalism and abstract art. Was just pointing out that it's an idea that you can only take so far. Ideally you want an art paradigm that you can't arrive at the end of with 5 minutes of thinking.

>>3220894
I love Kafka, but not even close. Writing a book about it doesn't count.

>>3220848
This is getting there.

>>3221049
>The living masters, such as
>Proko
>Loomis
>Shädman
>Vilpuu


Hahahaha, I like this guy

What happened to that wall of autistic REEEEEEing the MoMafag effortposted? Did mods delete it?
I came back to save it, it was so hilariously autistic and mad

>>3221062
Underrated post.

Going through all permutations until everything has been done and everything blends into one dead gray mass really reminds me of (((DJ Racemixer)))

>>3220291
There is a difference between talent and a genius. Genius of an artist is something that questions the art itself, makes it progress into something else or questions something that art didn't question before. There are multiple theories that define art, from Kant to Fiedler to Dorfles. Not sure about contemporary philosophers.

There are galleries specialized for certain types of art. The illustration is applied arts discipline and is based more on a talent, than a genius, even though illustrative (classical) art can be seen as a gallery art if it is put in that context by an artist himself.

To be an artist (in philosophy abstract contemporary art kind of a way), just create whatever you want in any medium and don't give a fuck. It's a profession you do 24/7, since, nowdays, your personality defines you as an artist and you can't fake it.

>>3221241
Is it this one? I haven't closed this thread since it was made

>>3221108

looks like one piece character.

>>3221430
>they lack the open mind
if you're happy to leave a safe open you mustn't have anything valuable in it
>and skillset to create modern art
which skills, if any

Every modern artists says "oh anon, you don't get it! There's more to a painting than x,y and z!" yet none of them can just tell you straight what those things are.
It's the hubris of artists who think they have done all there is to be done in art and have to reinvent the wheel to get anything out of its exhausted husk. The only thing empty is their ambitions.

>>3221430
That's the one
Truly memeworthy

This should go on the /ic/ sticky

>>3221132
Are you okay, anon?I wasn't exclusively talking about /ic/ alone, get a grip.

>>3221444
>It's the hubris of artists who think they have done all there is to be done in art and have to reinvent the wheel to get anything out of its exhausted husk. The only thing empty is their ambitions.
because repeating established, redundant, sterile structures presented by Loomis is so much better.

It's a farce. "Abstract" is just another synonym for "Bad".

>>3221484
illustrator is just another synonym for a sad fuck-up.

>>3220291
Bauhaus, Weimar, and Jews.

>>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/

>>3221491
see: >>3221486

>>3221477
Loomis' method is just another means of expression. If you use loomis and create sterile drawings the fault lies only with you.
If you splash paint on a canvas and think that eliminates the sterility of your work, you're an abstract expressionist.
Expressionism is to art as screaming is to speaking; "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

>>3221491
you keep bringing up the MOMA, which is a tiny fraction in modern art presentation. The MOMA is actually an institution that repeats established stuctures and tries to sell old art in a new context over and over again and does fairly little to uprising art in comparison.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject is perfectly showing in your linear, unspecified criticism, like the constant "MOMA" bashing, which has no connection to the ongoing discussion.

While art reception is being distorted by galleries, auction houses and other art market related sellout stategies, illustration losers like /ic/ faggots have no lobby whatsover, other than manga nerds and their own kind, lurking on web forums and trying to elevate themselves to a level they won't ever reach.

>>3221501
>Expressionism is to art as screaming is to speaking; "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Sounds so good to the average /ic/ faggot, who can't reach beyond bland and boring "correct" drawing - the nostalgia of school days, where your daddy would tell you you're a good boy for getting good grades.

The entire bashing of modern art - btw Pollock is your entry level reference, your most basic example, known to every stupid kid in highschool - is based on the envy and ignorance of illustration artists, uninspired concept artists, who only aim to become as good as some other dude already was before them.

You guys are copycats, impersonators, chameleons with no aspiration whatsoever.

Western "modern" art represents the European - asleep, fetishizing failure and weakness, paid for and curated by Jews, tricked into deconstructing tradition for another tribe's shadowy intent, decadent, unwell, obsession with ugliness and reductiveness, hyper atomised individualism and pretentious, self absorbed, often self hating projecting marking the death knell of European national pride and sense of duty towards the collective

I believe the art world reflects the spirit of the people. Would you look at contemporary art and say we are a healthy, proud people with a bright future?

manga pleb = "hurr durr I love animey!"
concept artist, illustrator = "I can't do any better, so I have to work commercially"
emerging artist, hard working on self-improvement = "I want to improve, exhibit, become well known"
established artist, living off of his work = "I have arrived where I want to be and can afford whatever I need"

where is /ic/ on this spectrum?

>>3221515
holy fuckin deep and true. nice

>>3221515
oh you're the dickhead who copy-pasted the post and started a thread based on that.
you seem awfully butthurt, if you ask me.

>jews
>jews
>jews
>muh jews !

It didn't work out for you, so it has to be a jew controlled field.

>shadowy intent, decadent, unwell, obsession with ugliness and reductiveness, hyper atomised individualism and pretentious, self absorbed, often self hating projecting ....
I don't get it, so it has to be a high-brow elite thing.

>>3221502
The fallacy you make is to confuse the wealthy and monied art markets of today, many of which have lost all credibility solely from being involved in the money laundering of selling blank canvases for millions, you confuse them with the tastes and values of the majority, and you think it gives them value.
Case in point - the Alt Right. They have zero platforms, money, institutions, awards, mainstream media, they are hounded and kicked off every corner of the internet and yet their cultural value is incredibly high as they hold space in the minds of every leftist rent free, and have hundreds of thousands of members and millions of sympathizers. Are they irrelevant nerds lurking on web forums? I'd be very careful thinking about the silent dissident voices in your nation in such a dismissive and conceited way

>>3221515
Couldn't have put it better myself

>>3221530
no, my simple friend, i don't confuse any of these ambiguous states, both in the art market and the art production field.

but rather, you /ic/ plebs, or you in particular (note the repeating "Case in point") have the audacitiy to propose Kasimir Malevich's Black Square not to be a piece of art, yet you little sheeps are sucking every little drop of spit out of your old fart Loomis, just to get a glimpse of what it might feel like to be an artist. All yu end up is a miserable mess of a person, tricking themselves and your close ones into thinking you actually have talent. All your "talent" hs to offer is a washed down "drawing for dummies" course that you followed, quite possibly in the most anti-social way, sitting alone in front of your computer screen.

You dismiss fine art and contemporary art in the most platonic, gratuitous way, simply because you lack the general knowledge on the subject matter and because you refuse to accept that there is more to art than basic skill levels and "getting it right". You are true philistines in the most straightforward definition, something that you hardly find in such a pure form. Interestingly enough, this really mostly comes from people working in creative areas, who seem to have a personal vendetta out of disappointment in their own abilities.

>>3221515
Fedoradolph please just fuckin' go, dude

>>3221517
MOMAron is butthurt

>living off your work
>as another catch-penny fine art welfare case out of the tens of thousands of debt-ridden adult children that emerge from schools across the U.S. and Europe
>who's compelled to spend hours trying to defend the non-existent virtues of his own infantile drip paintings, macaroni pictures and ready-mades on a forum for teenagers

Get a job dude

>>3221540
HE'S STILL POSTING
8 HOURS OF ARGUING AND HE'S STILL POSTING
You realise Loomis is a meme around here? Of course you don't, you're a pretentious and unpleasant autist
What's the matter? Did an art history course and you don't like /ic/ mocking your precious bullshit con artists? Do you feel like your pseudointellectual research into talentless nihilistic hacks was a waste of time and money and a sign of how much you crave to be intellectual, learned and scholarly?

How about you explain, in very simple terms (no pseudointellectualising here), what Malveich's black square means and why it is art. We'll wait, faggot

>>3221545
>i don't agree with you so go away
lol

>>3221524
why are there no indepth interpretations of digital illustrations, big breasted fantasy bitches with huge swords, skinny outfits and kitsch shading and color pallets?

because there is no substance, nothing, nada. It is jerkoff material, both in technical terms as digital art goes and in the lame motif presented.

Digital artists, concept artists and character designers seem to be pissed on /ic/ that they are confronted with the fact that they have absolutely zero in common with fine art and contemporary art.

>>3221545
again the MOMA accusation. I shit on the MOMA for all I care. It is just another institution aming to make money off of other peoples (artists) work.

>>3221548
right back at ya, faggot. I've cooked and been to a concert in the meantime. And you're still upset about my posts? Damn, you must be butthurt.

You still don't understand the Black Square? Ok, read the wikipedia article, if you can manage comprehensive reading. I doubt it, but give it another shot. You sound like the dependent baby boy who calls his dad, because he can't setup an ikea shelve on his own.

>>3221558
>everything in the realm of illustration and classical art is kitch
Consider Suicide

>went to a concert
pic for proof, MoMautiste? Seeing as your post ID shows you've been replying multiple times per hour I detect a lie

>>3221561
>pic for proof, MoMautiste?
oh sure, pic for the cuntbag who's too afraid to show his own work, yet trashes others on no grounds.

I left five hours ago and returned around an hour ago from now. You two or three little cuntbags, screencapping your lame excuses to the arguments presented, are still lurking, which is the real cringeworthy thing here.

>>everything in the realm of illustration and classical art is kitch
at no point did I ever shit on classical art. on your average, lameass illustrations, yes. not on classical art.

>>3221548
>It was a joke, Loomis is a meme, we don't even rely on Loomis so much!
so goddamn pathetic.

>>3221241
>>3221430
one of you offended little babies reported the posts. that's how you deal with uncomfortable facts: you are in denial.

>>3221558
>why are there indepth interpretations of ready-mades, drip paintings with huge splotches, inscrutable compositions and kitsch shading and color pallets?

We've been over this, MOMAron. It is an industry like any other, it needs paid shills//hype men, brick and mortar institutions, and of course, genuine useful idiots defending it, to exist

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

http://www.findyourartschool.com/articles/art-school-tuition/

>art school tuition can be substantial. In fact, most art schools are more expensive than many public universities. Close to half a million individuals are enrolled in art and design programs in the U.S. Independent art and design colleges have a total average tuition over $40,000

>>3221569
dream on

>>3221566
Still failed to do the following (i'll repeat for you):
How about you explain, in very simple terms (no pseudointellectualising here), what Malveich's black square means and why it is art. We'll wait

You sound pretty upset. Did you autistically rant about this too at your made up concert?

>>3221570
Man your image descriptions are fucking perfect lol

>>3221569
>"Bye! I'll report back with a video of me burning one of your precious colour by number books"
And unsurprisingly, the faggot is still here, has yet to explain why Malveich's square is art and has yet to do anything he said he'd do. My shock: imagined.

im going to save art

>>3221571
You are begging me to explain something that you don't understand? That's how low you get? lmao

Do you have serious issues with comprehensive reading? No, even better. You have zero knowledge on art history. Most of what you read in the wikipedia article will mean nothing to you / or you have to scan through numerous sub articles to even understand individual terms used. Why? No education, no understanding, nothing. Just a little shitty bedroom digital fartist, who likes to draw mediocre naked grills.

I appreciate your saving some pics of Condo works though. You're really taking this seriously.

>>3221574
read again:
>>3220764
>>3220899
>>3220928
>>3220960
oh and this little shitstain isn't even capable of finding his own metaphors, but instead he tries to distort mine while completely missing the point >>3220947 no defence for this bullshit for a good reason.

>>3221576
Brian pls

>>3221581
I'm bored, sorry

>>3221169
I kind of like Basquiat's art. Is there something wrong with me? It's interesting to look at.

>>3221588
its fine, there wasn't much else going on in art at the time

>>3221580
I've read the wiki. I'm not asking you to rehash the wikipedia article you read, I'm asking for YOU to explain its meaning why it's art, in your own words. Scared you'll reveal yourself as a brainlet and a philistine?

And it's another anon saving the Condo works
>taking this seriously
Advanced Autism.jpg

>>3220291
>People that don't actually make art get Liberal Arts degrees.
>The only job they can get is writing about art.
>People that don't make art in charge of writing/educating about art
>These people gravitate towards the kind of art that relies on a third part explaining
>Liberal Arts person gets feeling of validation and superiority from this

>>3220989
>>3220982
>>3220944
>>3220771
>hamemetia

This nigga watches one Jordan Peterson lecture and now he can't stop saying hamartia...

>>3221135
If you were ironically posting you wouldnt've admitted it, you dumb newfag

It's obvious what's wrong with modern art. As art critic Arthur Danto pointed out in the 80s(though he didn't see it as something wrong) its the end of art, where art and the philosophy of art have merged into an unholy union. You don't even need to see, for example, the Duchamp urinal or the blank canvas to "get" everything you were ever going to get out of them. The (often vapid) philosophical discussion is the main content and the art is often quite incidental.

<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/55784152" width="640" height="361" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p><a href="https://vimeo.com/55784152">Why Beauty Matters - Por que a beleza importa</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/jinacio">jinacio</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

>>3221558
>You still don't understand the Black Square?
>Ok, read the wikipedia article
So you don't understand it either

>>3220317
>Why don't I just do absolutely nothing and starve to death?

Already done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

>>3220317
...d-deep...

>>3221855
Funny! But not exactly the same.
But the whole thing was just mocking, so I'll just stfu now.

It all comes down to this:
If you don't have the sensibility to appreciate a Malevich painting or even a Richter painting then you don't have the sensibility to understand a Bruegel or a Piero della Francesca

>>3221894
"My art doesn't mean anything" - Gerrard Richter

>>3220317
>Malevich
Laurence Stern did it over 150 years earlier.

>>3220742
We all know you don't actually care about any of the qualities you say makes these fucking blank canvases good, if i showed up with a completely unique "painting" of a few fucking geometric shapes "which has never been done before" and offered you a deep interpretation you still wouldn't put it in an art gallery because it wasn't made by a smug money laundering cunt with the right connections.
You've devalued art to the point where the word art itself is considered pretentious by association with your fucking smugness, and if i tell anyone i make art all they think of is faggots droning on about red squares because your stupid edgy cult of the unskilled has become the status quo 50 years ago.
Modern, contemporary, or whatever you call this shit "art" has no value and i hope it all gets burned.

>>3221832
did you just try to xss 4chan?

>>3220291
>some art has meaning
>some art shows skill
>some art has both

But:

>more respect to artist's who are able to convey their ideas while showing skill and knowledge

As well as:

>constant suspicion with modern art that the artist is really a hack, using simplicity of form to cover up being a shallow, lazy, greedy bitch

That sums it up?

>>3222057
Modern art cannot have meaning because it doesn't have anything to convey that meaning.
You cannot interpret anything from a blank canvas without outside context so the truth is:

>some art has meaning
>some art shows skill
>art without the latter cannot be art as it cannot convey its meaning

>>3220291
It's about rebelling against the establishment, pop culture and the mainstream, except your main customers are Jay Z, Beyonce and Sylvester Stalone.

>>3221906
these are pretty good

>>3222272
>mfw sheepish admiration of a movement used by the CIA to secretly fund with tax-payer money behind the backs of the US Americans to manipulate US art culture is anti-establishmentarianism.

>>3221848

read again:
>>3220764
>>3220899
>>3220928
>>3220960

>>3222037
>if i showed up with a completely unique "painting"
please do. I love when someone says "I could do that". It never fails to entertain. Let's see your unique painting / idea that would find its way into art history.

>You've devalued art
me alone? jeez, thanks for giving me so much credit!

>red squares
the expert is speaking, uhuh.

>cult of the unskilled
great way to summarize /ic/.

>has no value
you don't get to decide. keep being mad, it probably makes you sick in the longrun, being this butthurt in your envy for modern art and how you'll never reach any significance. you will find an early grave, being that stressed out by it. more fun for the rest of us.

>>3222064
>cannot have meaning
not for, it doesn't. meaning is largely based on the intellect of the observer. if you fail to see the meaning in art, it falls right back on you. even more so, as you are part of the minority that loves to shit on modern art, while having close to zero knowledge about it's implications.

>>3222414
>throwing all of art into one box, bc the CIA has apparently interveined in some old-ass art society, which is nothing more than one of you chemtrail quality conspiracies.
nice.

*correction
>>3222064
>cannot have meaning
no meaning for, indead.

>>3222519
>you don't get to decide

Good thing we can always trust the judgment of those people who do get to decide, by your idiotic metric lmao

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

>>3222530
I'd love to see your "art". Why don't you show us something original you did? I bet it's groundbreaking. Oh, right, you are too much of a pussy to dare.

>>3222533
That's the point; everything's been done and done to DEATH. Avant garde art of the sort you're defending in spite of the great harm it's caused to hundreds of thousands of people through the educational industrial complex in the western hemisphere is itself all derivative of its progenitors in the late 19th and throughout the mid 20th century. You can't act like the six millionth drip painting you've seen is somehow any more original than an illustration of a chick with rockin' tits. I'm sorry but the age of experimentation is over. It's had a good run. Enjoy the age of tiddies my friend.

>>3222530
>pointing out that there are idiots on the consumer end of art.
are you serious? there are idiots in all fields of work, especially on the consumer end. you are a pathetic little moron with a lot of excuses for your contempt.

>harm it's caused
lmao, what harm? are you stupid?
the catholic church has procecuted artists for hundreds of years. you seriously have the audacity to say, contemporary art "does harm" to anyone? if someone wants to buy a piece of art he or she likes, let them buy it. do you jump in to stop people from buying plasma tv's? what kind of lunatic are you to fantasize telling people what to like?

>six millionth drip painting
anyone who still does drip painting after Pollock, is a Pollock derivate. in my opinion, that would be redundant, but then again, there are people doing surrealist paintings even today.
your beloved realism and accuracy that you get taught by old farts like Loomis hasn't got the slightest chance of being relevant to internationally recognized fine art. it is simply jerking off on technical aspects.

>I'm sorry but the age of experimentation is over.
I'd be so endlessly embarrassed, if I was you. kys. after that sentence, you have no better outlook.
the time to experiment is never over. we constantly reinvent our lives, we reinvent medicine, we reinvent every aspect of human life as we make progress. you seriously say art has to stagnate?

You are a hopeless case.

Let's see you best recent sketch. Are you an artist?

Modern/Abstract art was interesting when the artist actually meant to have a message with his work . Whether it was a sort of silent protest against fascists regimes or drawing a final abstract painting to express their emotions before be dragged to a prison.
Lots of older abstract art has meaning to it that isn't just visual.
However todays abstract art is just shit tier 'MUH DEEP' emotions garbage, filled with crap like women wiping their period blood on canvases and bullshit like that...

>>3222552
You still don't get it. Just say it, you prefer old masters. It doesn't change a single aspect of modern art since the impressionist movement branching out into new areas, a very natural organic development. e.g. Cecily Brown is one of the most worthwhile painters alive, working on the threshold of abstract and figurative painting. Just because you dismiss the ideas behind Malevich or any given artist that happens to be not your taste, doesn't in the slightest way make it any less of a work of art.

All you do is repeat your shit opinion over and over again. You don't like modern art? Fine! Who gives a shit? You and numerous other art philistines have a lot of banal reasons to do so. My best guess is that you are intellectually incapable or entirely uninsterested in building an understanding and a fundamental knowledge on art past the old masters, which you have proven in here to the fullest extent. If you knew what you were talking about, you could still legitimately hate on Malevich with good reasons (I'm not too fond of the Black Square myself, but I respect it's intentions), but your reasons are opinionated, banal, ignorant and uninformed.

You are constantly putting all of modern art into one box. As a reminder, Giorgio Morandi does not fit your silly cliché in the slightest. He was highly sceptical of the art world, hardly ever exhibited or went to exhibitions himself. He was working alone in his studio for most of his life and would rather not show his work to a broad audience. When it was shown somewhere in switzerland in a group exhibition, he visited the place anonymously and was said to have been very irritated and confused by the whole deal.

Artists and the art market are two entirely different worlds. You are scolding artists for the shit that the art market and art investors are doing, which is complete and utter nonsense. There are even arists toying with the decadence of it all (Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst)

>>3222552

If all you care about is "muh old masters", you are a nostalgic.
>the time for experimentation is over
Those are the words of a conservative, rusty nostalgic. You can't expect anything new or worthwhile coming from such a person. All you do is repeat the past and live in the past.

>>3222544
>you seriously have the audacity to say, contemporary art "does harm" to anyone?

Absolutely; and it's not about who's buying obviously. The aesthetic subjectivity of the sort that is being promoted has created an education system that pumps out young adults by the score who are incapable of producing art anyone in the world would be interested in were there not ulterior motives or taxpayer funding involved, and especially because they're not among the handful of cherry-picked artists who're more celebrities than anything else. Naturally they're also left in ruinous debt for their trouble.

http://www.findyourartschool.com/articles/art-school-tuition/

>art school tuition can be substantial. In fact, most art schools are more expensive than many public universities. Close to half a million individuals are enrolled in art and design programs in the U.S. Independent art and design colleges have a total average tuition over $40,000

>internationally recognized fine art

Considering the standards that earn that sort of recognition I wouldn't consider myself in bad company

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

Your appeal to authority fallacy is going to continue to fall on deaf ears, here.

>we reinvent every aspect of human life as we make progress.

You're unironically comparing paint on a canvas to medicine and science? You refer to a black canvas and things like the "interior semiotics" performance pieces progress?

I'm literally lmaoing @ ur life MOMAron

>>3222575

philosophy has roughly the same unemployment rate. a study a few years ago in central Europe has shown that university degrees in humanities and art have a poor job outlook, albeit higher paid, but the allover subjective quality of living and contentment in these groups is higher than in those found in working classes.

Secondly, the fact that the majority of art graduates don't end up working in art DOES NOT have anything to do with them NOT WORKING AT ALL. Artist have in the past and still do live off of jobs that pay the bill, while they develope their skill on the side, like your nice graph shows in a condescending way. It is each individuals choice to educate themselves in any field of interest. That is the freedom we share in this society. I could think of a whole bunch of truly meaningless studies, like theology or gender studies ...

>taxpayer funding
same applies for any other field of education. There is no guarantee that you will be a successful chemist, if you finish your degree. Maybe you don't stick to your profession and decide to go in another direction later in life. Is that also lost taxes to you?

>Naturally they're also left in ruinous debt for their trouble.
bullshit. even your graph is disagrees. artists with a low success rate work in art-related or non-related jobs that pay the bills.

>monkey art
again: You are scolding artists for the shit that the art market and art investors are doing, which is complete and utter nonsense. There are even arists toying with the decadence of it all (Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst)

>You're unironically comparing paint on a canvas to medicine and science?

In terms of importance to the human race, yes. Fine art is one of the pinnacles of human culture.

>You refer to a black canvas ....
get off Malevich already. There are hundreds of other artworks that are just as relevant. We know it by now, you suck at understanding these concepts and their importance. You hate the Black Square. Nobody cares.

>>3222565
>>3222567
fine if you can truly see meaning and depth in abstract art
Lets see you dissect this painting
Try to find the artists meaning
His thought process what message was he trying to send?

>>3222597

It would be too much to say, it was a cheap wannabe-Pollock. It is a badly executed copy by an amateur. Poor grounding colors, probably unmixed from the tube, put on caerlessly with a knife, visible comb-like strokes that do nothing for the allover dynamics ...

But first and foremost, it is a sad attempt to copy Jackson Pollock. It is unoriginal.


You are still too afraid to show your great pieces of art. Big mouth, no actions.

>>3222607
>cheap wannabe pollock
This was made Nestor toro
He isn't just some Pollock knock off he makes shit that sells for 4-8 grand
So tell me again what is the meaning behind this? If you can truly understand it

>>3222607
Here's the sketch you keep asking for (from different people as well, but I've been arguing with you as much as anyone else) just as a token of good will. Yes, I do believe that when it comes to paint on canvas that most avenues have been explored; I don't mean in the sense that it's impossible to do something cool or unique, rather that I think it's very arrogant of fine artists to look down on illustrators who're doing as they like as if every new geometric shape on a canvas is a revolution. As I'd also said before, I don't think that abstract art is always bad as a rule, and that I like Italian Futurism and stuff by artists like John Berkey who blur the lines between abstract and realist illustration-but I don't have much respect for ready-mades, performance art, blank canvases or things that and I feel I have a good enough reason.

>>3222597
>>3222621
It doesn't look like a pollock knockoff, but it does look like shit.

Trying to find meaning in abstract art is like reading between the lines on a blank page.
Any value it has is not inherent to itself but rather artificially created outside of the artwork for various reasons.

>>3222621
I've looked at his other shit and it's fucking awful. He looks like some Barrista faggot with his hipster beard. He is represented by Saatchi, which is comes as a surprise, but as I said over and over again, the art market has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with marketing and how you make money off of art.

>>3222650
>asked for original artwork
>shows some Wacom shit
It is as I thought, you are an illustrator, deeply rooted in tutorials and learning books. Despite all the effort, you have adopted a lot of elements that come across as sterile and mathematical. If you look at the hairline on his front and the contour of the head, it is your basic "circle here, intercection line there" approach. It looks traced to me.

You do the same little blocks of lines to get a chisel-type shading, because that's what you learned, it's nothing that came organically from your own practice and realisation how you can achieve effects.
>pic: your average Loomis lesson with those chisel blocks do nothing for the haptic

Except for the eye and nose area, which is half decent, it features the typical illustrator choices: You close areas of darker shades with an outline (neck, ear) like it's some architectural sketch. He looks like he is wearing permanent make-up with his weird eyebrows, that you also close with fat contours.

In essence, your sketch shows just what I've pointed out this whole time: You have adopted the style and choices of someone else.

And you keep yelling
>There's nothing new in modern art anymore!
while you are as much of a lazy, uninspired copy-cat yourself. That is just laughable.

>>3222796
>You have adopted the style and choices of someone else.
Oh yes, he may have, but you haven't. You're not like the others; you're "independent" and "free-thinking". You tell him this in a language you did not invent on a computer you did not invent that is powered by a station you did not create supplied by coal you cannot create. You pick up the paintbrush you did not manufacture, grab tubes of paint you did not manufacture and throw them on a canvas you did not manufacture in order to manufacture something that you presume is original and thus better than a skillful application of those same paints would be.
You live a borrowed life; nothing you can make will ever be truly original. You can make objectively skilled copies with objective adherence to perspective and light, and you can say that any copy is subjectively good, but you cannot even at the height of your narcissism make an original piece.

>>3222796
I can count the portraits I've attempted on one hand and have made few completed works in general. While I can copy to a degree I'll be the first to admit I don't have a very strong command of the medium itself. I did not make conscious decisions with the contours such as line weight apart from their placement-otherwise I definitely would have went back and tamed those thick lines that I'd laid down for the ears, for example.

>It looks traced to me.

Nah, I was aware of some of the flaws of the piece outside of considerations of "line weight" and the like before uploading it. Note how I have the collar emerging from behind his neck instead of his jaw, how the overall shape of his head is slightly off (too narrow) and his lips are smaller giving him a more mature appearance more like an effeminate man than a child; also how the collar has been lazily corrected leaving an angular curve that doesn't exist on the reference. Part of the image was basically "symbol drawn" (like the eyebrows and eye) because the reference image is a washed out, low-resolution thing and I don't have the knowledge of anatomy or media to reproduce it quickly.

>your sketch shows just what I've pointed out this whole time: You have adopted the style and choices of someone else.

I don't draw like this 99% of the time unless I'm doing anatomy studies. I deferred to fine-art style imagined plumb lines while in the process way more than any Loomis abstraction, the "hatching" was literally just laying out planes instead of dappling 100 short hairs on a shaved head, much like a cartoonist will only draw a handful of bricks on a house.

Nonetheless you asked to see a drawing and you got it. I don't need to be the best artist to have an opinion about the inscrutable monkey art you see in museums propped up by white collar criminals and government largesse any more than I'd need to be a five star chef to decide whether I like chicken nuggets from McDonald's or not. Same with you.

>>3222796
The reason people ate so pissed at abstract art is that anyone can replicate it. It takes little to no skill
You call Toro a shit artist but his stuff still sells for 4-8 grand
At the end of the day is his art worth that much?

>>3222796
You've been avoiding the question of what does it mean? So is Nestor paintings hold any deep meaning to the paint splatters or is it (just like most modern art today) just splatters on a canvas with some pseudo - intellectual garbage about how """meaningful it is"""

>>3222519
>Let's see your unique painting...
Here you go, there's my unique modern art.
So fuck off with your smugness because I COULD DO THAT, anyone could paint geometric shapes unless they have some sort of disability. I didn't feel a need to prove that i can do it before because anyone who isn't delusional can understand the reasoning behind people saying that they can randomly scribble on a canvas.

>...that would find its way into art history.
My whole point is that it wouldn't find it's way into history because you retards don't go off objective quality but off the fact that someone has connections to curators.

>>3222607
Nestor Toro is a sad attempt to copy Jackson Pollock
Jackson Pollock is a sad attempt to copy Duchamp and Laurence Stern

Case closed

>>3221793
Nigga I know what Hamartia means from my high school classical literature classes, I don't need Gatekeeper in chief [B]eterson to rant about mythology and guilt trip me over the holocaust caring about my people

>>3222519
>me alone? jeez, thanks for giving me so much credit!
No, not you alone, your stupid fucking movement. If you ever tried to improve yourself instead of wallowing in piss you would've learnt english and realised that there is such a thing as a plurar you.

>great way to summarize /ic/.
/ic/ is literally the opposite, it's a cult of skill, we might not have it and most will never achieve it but we strive towards it. I guarantee that your average anon on /ic/ can paint better than pollock.

>you don't get to decide
Well, your own philosophy is that art is subjective, has no objective qualities, and is ls completely about self expression. So i get to decide you fucking hypocrite.

>>3223016
>Here you go, there's my unique modern art.
okay, it's horrible even compared to hacks

>>3223046
You just don't understand it enough

>>3223049
>hurr anyone can do that
>can't do it
embarassing

>>3223052
When did I say that?
Stop making a straw man argument
I'm saying that you didn't actually take a look at the picture and visual the serenity of the blended colors
Plebiant/10

>>3223060
and all we see is empty posturing

>>3223046
>But art doesn't have ANY objective quality! It's all subjective! Self expression!
>BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're a fucking hypocrite.

>>3223125
>implying it was me who said that
I just like some modern abstract art because it's visually interesting, I'm very shallow
anons mspaint joke is visually trash even compared to pollocks worst anal discharge, and obviously conceptually empty besides

>>3223128
you faggots love pollocks discharge so fuck off

>>3223129
>t. proko pro

>>3223128
Why do people like you hang out here?

>>3223170
>why does someone who likes images hang out on a board dedicated to the image

>>3223172
>>3223172
Images is a broad term, unless you're saying you like all types of images, which if I can assume that some of the previous posts are yours, then you don't like all images.

Most people who like Modern Art believe they're superior to representational art that requires technical skills. This is an art critique board mostly about representational art that requires technical skill. Modern Art by its nature opposes objectification, so you will never be able to make a valid objective critique of any of its pieces. For example, you may not like something subjectively about an amateur abstract expressionist painting, but that is not a valid critique. What makes an amateur Modern artist an amateur? Is it the number of wealthy patron the artist has? The number of years he has practiced it? Or is it the artist's fame? Or is it because he is the first one to paint something? Any one of these explanations is extremely uninteresting and arbitrary.

A valid critique builds on what is objective. Do you believe there is an objective element that makes a good abstract painting? If yes, then please elaborate.

>>3223220
the reason why modern abstract art is viewed to be so completely worthless is because there exists almost a total anarchy of standards rather than because of the potential of abstract art in itself
what makes abstract art good is the same as what makes representative art good, except for ability to represent. That is, good use of composition, color, etc. You see the same sort of people lambasting modern art posting pictures of gothic cathedrals or whatever, when those gothic cathedrals are essentially 99% abstract sculpture. Objectivity is pretty uninteresting in art because the only objective value you can judge is adherence to realism, which if followed concedes that art is just pure shit from a pre-camera age. The rest have to follow institutionalized SUBJECTIVE standards, which come from the pooling together of the aesthetic instincts of many intellectually powerful people, and some philosophy. I don't believe modern art is superior to the old masters or general representative art either (in the end there's just more that can be done with it), but there's a lot of abstract art that is unfairly dismissed because hurr tracy emins bed and formaldehyde sharks and cia operatives lmao.

>>3223236
>there exists almost a total anarchy of standards

That has pretty much always been the case though. With its early progenitors it was a novelty, and then shortly thereafter Pandora's [B]ox was opened everything was on the table, sometimes in the literal sense (Duchamp's urinal or bicycle wheel for example)

>which if followed concedes that art is just pure shit from a pre-camera age

Abstractfag meme with no relevance outside of that community. No one here thinks such a thing and I've never met a layman that comes to that conclusion on their own.

>the aesthetic instincts of many intellectually powerful people

Intellectually powerful people like Pierre Brassau the monkey artist and the critics who'd lauded his work?

Or what about the thousands of art school graduates that couldn't tell the difference between internationally acclaimed pieces of abstract art and jpgs made in mspaint?

>there's a lot of abstract art that is unfairly dismissed because hurr tracy emins bed and formaldehyde sharks and cia operatives lmao.

I don't think it's unfair at all. Just like most realistic art, most abstract art deserves to be dismissed just as casually as a thrift store landscape. When I'd purchase a music CD in the 90s there would usually be 11 songs on there and only 2 of them would be any good despite the raving of critics assuring everyone that it was a must-have musical experience from open to close, it's exactly the same here. Music criticism and art criticism are cut from the same cloth in this manner, serving more to promote the product than anything else.

>>3223236
The reason for the anarchy of standards is precisely because there is no standard in Modern Art. You may have your own standard of what is good Modern Art, e.g., good composition and color, but the standard of how that exactly works is not shared among others nor is that shared between different pieces of Modern Art within the same genre. So you cannot say the standard you follow by is the correct one.

If there is no correct standard, and you critique an abstract piece using your own standards, that is not a valid critique. You're simply attempting to reshape the art to your own vision.

However, if there is a correct standard, then there is a certain way to arrange things and a formula of which color should be present together that makes the perfect Modern artist. This is objectivity no better than representational art, where the difference between where two colors should go on an abstract painting versus where two colors should go on a representational painting are both simply a matter rule.

/ic/ should just be renamed illustration/critique. That is basically what this place is.

>>3223016
>produces some faceless digital shit
>yells "I can do that!"
Point proven? nope.

>>3223024
>/ic/ is a cult of skill
>cult of skill

>>3223024
>I guarantee that your average anon on /ic/ can paint better than pollock
I think I just sharted laughing hard.

>>3223125
>>But art doesn't have ANY objective quality! It's all subjective! Self expression!
>>BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>You're a fucking hypocrite.
nope. even abstract art in most cases comes from years of practice in figurative painting. Just because you are blind to a type of quality, merely out of being uninformed about modern art, as you've admitted yourself, doesn't prove that modern art, the kind you subjectively hate (there's nothing more to your whole rant really other than that), isn't art at all. You hate it. That proves nothing other than your opinion.

You guys are throwing pretentious copycats in the discussion like this >>3222597 Saatchi dickhead. And I've said it again and again, the art market is a completely different aspect of the while thing.

Guess what, there are shit artists in fine art, and there is a whole bunch of shit artists in digitial crap art.

>>3223128
noteworthy. even this anon, who doesn't like to spend a lot of time with modern art, admits to occasionally liking some pieces of modern art. Be like this anon. open-minded, not the disappointed, tantrum-throwing loser like >>3223016

>>3223418
that's myy thought exactly. There is nothing wrong with it being an illustration board but it should be known as such.

>>3220291
That fucking specific picture triggers me so fucking hard

IIRC they found a special pigment which absorbed nearly all light and was an incredibly deep black as a result, meant to use for military shit and other applications like that.

Of course one artist gained the exclusive license to use the color, probably spending a ton of money on it so that he could be the only one to use it.

And then of course what did he do with this fucking pigment? Some sumi painting? Integrating it into a chiaroscuro portrait? HAHA OF COURSE NOT, HE PAINTED A WHOLE FUCKING CANVAS BLACK. THE LEAST ORIGINAL THING HE COULD'VE POSSIBLY DONE WITH IT


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I HATE MODERN ART, KILL 'EM ALL KILL 'EM ALL REEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>3221907
A quick search also shows that a Robert Fludd did the same even earlier, in 1617:

publicdomainreview.org/2015/04/09/black-on-black

>>3223605
>>3223418

Loomis hater here. FInally some people who would agree.

>>3223623
Yeah that's pretty much what happened with Vantablack. He probably thought "Hm, Yves Klein was pretty smart putting a copyright on that color! And then all he did was paint in that color exclusively and then he died early, because he poisoned himself over time. Maybe I should do the same!"
Dick move and completely lame.

>>3223627
That's pretty awesome actually, thanks for sharing!

>>3223271
>I don't think it's unfair at all. Just like most realistic art, most abstract art deserves to be dismissed just as casually as a thrift store landscape.
You can dismiss it as much as you want. Others don't dismiss it, but see something in it that rings with them. You basically say you can decide what people should like or not. As bad as it may seem, Tracy Emins stupid readymade created a vast following and earned a lot of recognition. It was copied hundreds of times, just like that schtick with glueing things to a table and hanging the table on the wall like a fucking painting.
At my university, students would constantly rip-off old concepts, even the shitty box that closes itself when you push a switch was exhibited, as if that asshole of a student had the original idea. Nowhere did he mention, it was a 9gag piece of shit meme.

Another female student made a lame version of Duchamps traveling exhibition case, where he had miniatures of his work in it. She did the exact same fucking thing, only lame, less thought through and with shitty fucking artworks. She sold it as her idea.

There are assholes out there, everywhere in the fucking art world. But it doesn't mean that there's no great art being done right now. Fine art that reflects on the digital age, that is inspired by the world we face now.

>Used to be enthusiastic drawfag who wanted to make graphic novels
>Immediately overwhelmed with disgust upon seeing the state of comics
>SJW capeshit on one side and straight up fetish on the other
>All of it meant to be consumed by narcissistic faggots I loathe
>Grow disillusioned
>Want to switch to fine art
>Be reminded that this is the state of fine art

>>3223737
>american comics
wew

>>3223749
I'm European. But here things are pretty stale.

>>3223737
>narcissistic faggots I loathe
Spoken like a true narcissistic faggot. Fix yourself rather than complaining about other people.

Good luck.

I vote to rename our board in ILLUSTRATION CRITIQUE, only so that we stop getting pretentious shit-suckers (literally)

>>3223737
who cares tho mang do what you want to do thats what art is bout

>>3222898
so upset, lmao.

Obviously, you learn to use the materials, based on centuries of knowledge on what is preserved with which materials. Hence the improvements in varnishes, grounds, color mixes, etc.
But you, little shitforbrains, try to exaggerate it, because you are butthurt about the enema-like teachings of Lemmings ... uhm, Loomis are cancer to individual approaches.

>>3223798
true words.

>>3223786
correction: "I vote to rename our board in ILLUSTRATION CRITIQUE, only so that we stop getting confusing Loomisean sheeples with artists."


>>3223737
edgy! and so specific!

>>3222990
>At the end of the day is his art worth that much?
No, I don't think it should be worth that much. But guess what, people buy it. Why? The Saatchi is a fucking huge, commercial, experienced gallery and they can push literally anything. They have some terrible stuff in their collection as well as admirable works by known artists. I don't get it either why some awesome artists would want to mix with some of the crap that the Saatchi shows, but I guess you can only find out once you talk to the curators, investors and artists at the openings. Good luck getting there.

>>3222998
How about you stop looking at shit by abstract-expressionist artists (I don't like them too much either) and look for the good ones?
Richard Diebenkorn, Paul Noble, Alex Katz, Luc Tuymans, ...

Who says there is no humor in "high class" fine art?
"Erased De Kooning" by Robert Rauschenberg is fucking hilarious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erased_de_Kooning_Drawing

More Humor (but more wicked):
Paul McCarthy, Mike Kelley - Heidi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NLoGyoitqA

My advice to you: Don't shit on all of modern art just because you (may rightfully) hate some of it.

>>3223835
>so upset, lmao
oof
>Obviously, you learn to use the materials, based on centuries of knowledge
>Obviously, you use someone else's knowledge
ummm sweetie
>"individual" approaches
>not "original"
backpedalling lol

>>3223905
>Obviously, you use someone else's knowledge
>ummm sweetie
still don't get it? awe.
again. if you are too unmotivated to figure out how to give your own twist to modelling faces, doing cross-hatching, getting anatomy right (through fucking practice, not through your Loomis-enema courses) ... you are just a lazy, uninspired hobby artist.

"I want to do cross-hatching like Loomis" = you start adopting Loomis style
"I want to construct like Vilpu" - you think in construction schemes all the time
"I want to become as good as concept artist Joe Cliché-Jose" = you become a cheap copy of his style

Got it? You don't find your own style by copying someone else. That includes being too lazy to understand anatomy on your own and eating away at all these learning books right from the start.

>>3223919
>find your own style
lol
>too lazy to understand anatomy on your own and eating away at all these learning books right from the start
you dropped out of school didn't you? it really shows
you know, the place where you learn everything from books and another person's tuition
libraries must make you vomit

>>3223929
>you know, the place where you learn everything from books and another person's tuition
I think you'll never get it. But I'll try again.
Take literature. You read Kafka and think: "Wow, I want to become a writer as well!" ... So you go ahead and re-write all Kafka books, only changing a few words, finding synonyms, etc. everything else is basically the same.
That's what excessive reliance on Loomis, Vilppu and the likes basically is. You drown out every chance to find your own ways.

>>3223939
>excessive reliance on Loomis
so normal reliance on Loomis is okay? You're still backpedalling dude, baka...

>>3223963
>baka
manga fag detected.
backpedalling? I wouldn't recommend Loomis for anyone. If you want to create something that is 100% you, Loomis will kill that right from the start. "a box here, a ball there, do shading like this" .... Drawing for Dummies. Are you a Dummy?

>>3223970
I've watched people "find their own way". They stumble in the dark for a year or two, never improve, then bitch about art school keeping them down. Something is better than nothing. It's a bag of tricks, you add to it.

>>3223970
>manga fag detected
newfag detected
>If you want to create something that is 100% you, Loomis will kill that right from the start
bruh anything will, it's impossible to make something that is 100% you unless you paint in blood on your own skin
>Drawing for Dummies. Are you a Dummy?
No but beginners are, and that's who Loomis is for

>arguing against learning from your betters
the absolute fucking state of this board

>>3223977
>No but beginners are, and that's who Loomis is for
Loomis is for people who are incapable to begin with or have given up altogether, accepting to become mediocre.

>bruh anything will, it's impossible to make something that is 100% you unless you paint in blood on your own skin
You, for one, have given up.

>>3223974
You only know people who suck. Is that what you wanted to say?
I've come back from an artist in residency program, two months in another country, all paid for, working on my own. And my friends don't suck either.

>>3223986
Post your student ID.

>>3221049
this is exactly why the arm chair philosophers account of art should be ignored.

>>3223982
n*sebro took his name off is all

>>3223986
>Loomis is for people who are incapable to begin with
yes, beginners
>or have given up altogether
given up on what
>accepting to become mediocre
by reading educational material?
>You, for one, have given up.
given up on what

>I don't suck and my friends don't suck either
post work

>>3223991
it's not even bait.

>>3223997
>given up on what
being a decent artist.


>post work
I won't post my work on a board of minors who jerk off to manga traps.

>>3224000
nuh-uh you've given up on being a decent artist
if you don't post your work you can't prove me wrong lol, just accept it

>>3223939
> So you go ahead and re-write all Kafka books, only changing a few words, finding synonyms, etc. everything else is basically the same.

Dude, Hunter S. Thompson rewrote The Great Gatsby word for word. There used to be a method of study where you'd just copy great writers as a way to learn the material and practice your penmanship.

>>3224000
>>3224006
Tsk tsk, they can never do it...

>>3224135
they can, but they won't. for obvious reason.
my paintings are a few clicks away. but i'd be a fucking moron if I'd let them show up in an automated 4chan archive with all the picture recognition and backtracing of these days.

>>3224215
I'm curious, what exactly are you afraid of?

>>3224219
who is proud about lurking on 4chan? You?

>>3224222
I honestly can't say I would care. I also doubt any potential employers would stumble upon it or even understand what 4chan is, the art directors I've worked with often don't even look at my portfolio.

I can justify it by saying, basically: ic is a community to get harsh critiques on your fundamentals, and provides some social interaction. If someone fails to understand that then fuck them, why would I want to know them?

I thought maybe you had security concerns.

>>3224222
Rest assured that no one gives a solitary shade of a shit about your artwork dude, regardless of where it’s posted

>>3224215
>>3224222
Also, I just realized, ic is totally useless if you aren't posting your work for critique somewhere. So if you won't post your work as a rule, I'd argue you're just wasting your time on here.

>>3224235
>employers
lol, who will employ an artist?
I don't think you know what it implies to be an artist fulltime.

SPOILER ALERT: you are "selfemployed"

>I thought maybe you had security concerns.
among other things, yes.

>>3224238
>shade of a shit
awesome name for a local shit-tier metal band
*noted*

>>3224240
I don't post any works, but I like to argue on here. It's worthwhile, believe me. I give motivating, sincere criticism and I like to argue.

>>3224264
>lol, who will employ an artist?
>I don't think you know what it implies to be an artist fulltime.

I don't even know what you're trying to say. Fulltime artists never have employers? Other types of employers won't hire people because they're artists? If a fulltime artist doesn't have an employer, who should he be afraid of finding his work on a 4chan archive?

People hire me on a freelance basis to make illustrations for them. That's what I meant by employers. Is this false? Who are you worried about seeing your work on 4chan?

> among other things, yes.

Such as? Genuinely curious.

> I don't post any works, but I like to argue on here. It's worthwhile, believe me. I give motivating, sincere criticism and I like to argue.

If it's worthwhile and you like it, why say this: >>3224222 ?(I'm assuming that's you, either way, you don't post, so...) Why are you ashamed?

>I give motivating, sincere criticism
Don't be so sure.

>>3224290
>Don't be so sure.
lel, yeah how would you know?

if you post your work on 4chan, knowing that there are sites that automatically grab and archive threads including images, you may well end up being traced back a few years from now.
and if you are just a little bit ambitious to maybe become a known artists, on small or large scale, city or across countries, you may want to avoid showing up in bad places (bad galleries, bad web searches, anything compromising).

>>3224295
>lel, yeah how would you know?
Haha, I don't, I just know that's the kind of thing I might say in a moment of arrogance, thinking too highly of myself.

>you may want to avoid showing up in bad places

Again, how is it bad? Were you not just saying that coming on here was worthwhile even though you don't even get crits? If it's actually good, and the problem is simply people perceive it negatively, why would you want to associate with them at all? Wouldn't you rather only work with reasonable people who know what is good? Is it only unreasonable people who will allow you to become a known artist?

Also, I'm tellin ya, most people don't even have that perception.

>>3224322
>Were you not just saying that coming on here was worthwhile even though you don't even get crits?
(sort of) anonymously, yes, it is ok.

this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=KAExa9P7hME

bump

>>3222650
traced
c'mon, dude! that's just lame.