/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3228960
http://www.evilbeetgossip.com/2017/12/07/leo-haggles-850k-basquiat-drawing-art-basel/
forgot link

Who gives a shit, that painting needs more fun with a pencil

thats because that drawing invokes a stranger feeling than sakimichans piece #6782. art is meant to make you feel something new

>>3228963
While people like you stay ignorant and likes to be poor, this fuck is managing to raise the value of his autism art and wojak drawings. Sad.

>>3228966
I feel like whoever bought that drawing not only got their own money wasted, but they bought it to stroke their ego and feel special, when in reality they are just sheep.

>>3228960

It looks almost like a David Shrigley drawing.

This might be painful to hear, but most of /ic/ "digital art" is some technical masturbation to the teachings of your "that's how to do it!" - teachers of choice.

Your typical fantasy crap art in /ic/ features chicks with big tits, some armor, swords, more masturbatory detail in the background, copied color pallets from some other digital fartists and a bunch of other clichés. It is devoid of any interesting tought. /ic/ fags produce art for their own kind: dumbed-down escapism into some anime inspired fantasy world. While stuff from Basquiat, Shrigley and the likes portraits the state of mind of a certain culture or the zeitgeist at the time. There is absolutely none of that in your hot, sexy fantasy bitch that you typically print and hang on your toilet door.

Periodically, you will get /ic/ faggots like OP here, who are absolutely puzzled by how the art market works. Because they don't understand the first thing about it. Instead, they sit in their fart ridden chairs with a Mountain Dew on the one said, Dorrito bag on the other and masturbate away with their tablets, doing silly fantasy crap "from mind" … wow. And you wonder why no one gives a fuck about your "art"?

>>3228984
Harsh.
What about the fee-fees?

>>3228984

Don't get me wrong, this
http://i.4cdn.org/ic/1512721682927.jpg

Is an awesome picture, technically speaking, althought the anon who made it could've spent a little (that means, a LOT) more time on getting a better background going instead of that paperthin, flat mess.

This example is one of the better pictures here on /ic/. But imagine if you seriously tried to get this into an actual art exhibition context.

What could you say about this picture? "Damn, that is some fine looking bitch in armor he got going there!"
Where is it set? "I guess it's some Xena type action stuff, hurr durr! Awesome!"
Does it have any context in our time? Is there a theme that's being discussed? "… wat!?"
What's the cultural background here? "Uh, Star Wars, Xena, Marvel movies … how the hell should I know!"

It roams in the field of concept art. It has a very functional, applied use sort of spirit. If it isn't used as a basis for character design, concept art for a movie or animation, it means nothing. It has no appeal, other than a very linear, flat narrative, if any. (Even the narrative is obsolete, as the woman is clearly posing, relaxed, mainly to show off her armor and body, some fantasy power added in her right hand, a wind that shows in her costume, but doesn't influence or show in the surrounding at all) …

So, in short: Concept art and fine art have hardly anything in common other than some technical aspects.

>>3228990
What are fee-fees? Try not being retarded and use actual words.

Most of /ic/ draws generic crap like >>3228992 says.

but at the same time, >>3228960 is fucking horrendously autistic and shit and makes as much sense as meme coins

Moral of the story: draw comics. Because a quality story is way more memorable and requires way more imagination than a quality piece of art. And thats just how life is, faggots.

>>3228992
"fee-fees"=feelings
I thought I was being funny.
Thank you for investing thought into your comment, unlike me.
Also, I am not reatrded, and if I were, I wouldn't be able to do
much about it, I may be autistic, but I am not retarded.
I understand your spin on the fact, that art that is mostly centered
on things that have no further meaning are devoid of any further
pleasure other than looking at it. But what would you think of the
image OP has posted? Does art have to be "nice" to look at.
I know that something being nice is subjective, but do you be-
lieve that there are any standards for art?

:^)
Could you maybe post works, that you appreciate?
It would be interesting to see, what someone that holds your
standards to art would think to be "fine art"...

>>3228992
>althought the anon who made it
Alright, are you just fucking baiting now?
That painting was made by Ruan Jia, not "an anon" (I believe it's an image from his livestream, WIP).
That image would also be pretty shit concept art, unless you're just going for a mood piece.
It's not at all reminiscent of Star Wars, Xena or Marvel either. If anything, it brings to mind JRPG games from 20+ years back. In particular Terra as portrayed by Yoshitaka Amano.

I'm not a massive fan of this particular piece by Ruan Jia but it would probably be pretty beautiful once properly finished and as far as meaning goes, it sure tells more of a story than the drawing in the OP. The image in the OP is much like a rare stamp. There is no inherent meaning or value to it, yet it sells for a lot of money because the collective made an arbitrary decision to value it at a certain price point.

>>3229012
You sound like someone whose main measure for "good art" is mostly extravagance: amount of work, details, realism.
The aspect you completely disregard is the inherent idea.

Basquiats picture can be interpreted as a take on mortality, the objectification of the human body as a vessel. When will I die? Will I stay healthy? Is my body deteriorating?
Such art works inspire thoughts, raise questions way more than they answer. And these ideas are explored individual, because you as the viewer are called to contemplate and discuss the ideas. All that time, the definitive meaning of the artwork stays ambiguous and it's enigma stays intact.

What questions come to mind when you look at the "great masterful digital artist" Ruan Jia?

>There is no inherent meaning or value to it
That is your perception. I'm sorry to say, but it is a very shortsighted, simple way of looking at it. You are repelled by the way Basquiat works, because you WANT to see works that have high ambitions in effort of execution. You resent the notion of a work of art functioning on its concept / thought / idea alone.

The rules governing digital art don't apply to fine art at all.

>>3229009

What contemporary works of art or artists I like is irrelevant. I've noticed that on /ic/, people seem to ask that in order to shit on the examples of art one prefers.

I can name old masters that are commonly agreed on, but are still important to me on a very personal level:
Goya, El Greco, Rembrandt, Velázquez, Dürer, Bruegel the elder, Turner

in comics: Charles Burns, Chris Ware, Thomas Ott

>>3229034
Thanks for your answer, have a nice day.

>>3229021
You sound like someone who went through art school. As a soon to be graduate of an art school myself, may I ask what you do for a living?

>>3229071
I did study, yes. I'm an artist by profession. I work in applied art fields (workshops, theatre) as well as doing occasional jobs as an illustrator. I'm trying to make a living off of my art alone and have received scholarships by the state and other institutions in the past. So I have a fair amount of initial experience with the art world.

>>3229036
You have great day too, darling. Bye

>>3228960
Those feels when you will never get paid big money to trash a Rolls Royce.

>>3229193
c'mon, he's Sideshow Bob. he can do whatever he wants.

>>3229193
Des_Königs_Neue_Kleider.png

>>3228992
>althought the anon who made it could've spent a little (that means, a LOT) more time on getting a better background going instead of that paperthin, flat mess.

The part I quoted shows me that you have little to no clue about visual communication and the conscious thought process that likely went into making that image.

>>3229226
>implying I don't know about creating a rythme of detail / no-detail, generalized drawing.

The surrounding plants are only hinted at … good!
Is it done well? …. nope. they look fucking dead and fake.

You can hint at a background with little detail, but it matters how you do that. As another anon mentioned, it was from a stream, so he didn't have a whole lot of time and it wasn't the goal to make it all consistent, to be fair.

>>3229230
>You can hint at a background with little detail, but it matters how you do that. As another anon mentioned, it was from a stream, so he didn't have a whole lot of time and it wasn't the goal to make it all consistent, to be fair.

Of course it matters how he does stuff.

>>3229238
>Of course it matters how he does stuff.
Sssso?
Reeling back?

>Another already bad thread further destroyed by MOMAron's compulsion to defend the status quo he represents at all costs

>"cultural zeitgeist"
>an elementary school-tier sketch labeled like a political cartoon and produced by a double-digit IQ nig-nog who just so happens to be butt-buddies with one of the most unduly renowned dadaists of all time

Sounds about right, but Basquiat's anecdote is just one of many proving the critics of this monkey art mostly correct.

>What could you say about this picture?

Finally admitting that this art is 100% about the narrative and dialog between self-important pedants that erroneously consider themselves esteemed philosophers rather than the thing itself, huh? As an aside the piece you'd alluded to is easily among Ruan Jia's least appealing. I'm pretty confident it was part of a demonstration of his process moreso than anything else.

>>3228960

Go ahead OP, feel free to "express yourself" in the same way that Basquiat does, but you will never ever see the same kind of financial success any more than the tens of thousands of kids that go to art school to "learn" this derivative infantile nonsense every year do without a hell of a lot of luck. I'd say it's akin to wanting to become a professional athlete but accomplishing that is at least meritorious in part.

>>3229193
dafuq can you link me the youtube video?

>>3228960
I love Basquiat's art, but I don't think I would ever pay that much. Can someone who knows anything about art history explain why his paintings cost so much? It can't just be money laundering, right?

>>3228984
What a hypocrite. And you understand how the art market works? Please explain.

If you're actually serious, why do you visit /ic/ knowing each visit is suffering?

>>3228992
Who are you to decide what others should enjoy?

it's simple; technical skill < appeal

and lets be honest, OP's image appeals a lot more to non artists than the 99.99% of technical self masturbation concept art that is put out there

>>3228984
>>3228992
>>3229021

Stop sniffing your own fart, faggot.

>>3229433
Now I know that you're a unaccomplished waste of a space just from this post.

>>3229469
And now I know you're the type of faggot who gets baited easily

The reason a Ruan Jia is good is because it's beautiful in the abstract and tehcnically impressive. If you can't see how those million scintillating digital illusions coalescing together to form a cohesive image is wonderful, you have no sense for beauty. As far as meaning goes, much of his stuff, plus concept art in general, is extremely trite. So in that sense, to me anyways, Ruan Jia has something in common with abstract expressionists (ie, empty, beautiful, meaningless form).

Too bad for Basquiat, most of his shit is neither meaningful or beautiful or technically impressive... so... I don't know what the point is. To make us ask the question: Is it art? What is art?

Bitch, if your picture is so bad it makes me wonder whether it's art, like how a big mac makes me wonder whether it's food, you done fucked up.

>>3229034
>Chris Ware, Turner, Goya

I lurve you.

>>3229483
>beautiful in the abstract
Ruan Jia isn't skilled in the abstract. He is a complete failure, when it comes to abstraction. but when it comes to autoerotic masturbatory digital art shit, he is a king, probably. I don't have a lot of comparison, as I hate the genre.

>>3229487
And I find you interesting, too.
Can you post your own recommendations? Check out Charles Burns, if you dont know his works already.

>>3229488
You could blow up any part of that Ruan Jia painting, jpeg artefacts and all, and it would be a better piece of abstract art than you'll ever do in your life MOMAron, lmao

>>3229489
Yeah, I def know Charles Burns, but I've only read Black Hole and X'ed Out series. I didn't like X'ed Out.

I would reccommend Bodyworld by Dash Shaw if you can get yer hands on a physical copy.

>>3229498

Wow, awesome! If that's all it takes, then by all means, please go ahead and send your portfolio to galleries who concentrate on abstract art.

I just saw that the Steve Turner gallery in LA has an artist called Joaquin Boz, who does abstract paintings. You should try there! Tell us how it went!

Obviously, you are missing out on earning a lot of money with your idea.

http://steveturner.la/

>>3229488
man your head is really far up your ay? need some help?

>>3229807

>>3229533
>Bodyworld by Dash Shaw
Gold! The whole comic is on his website, that's awesome! Thanks for the hint.

>>3229807
>>3229808
interesting. so he really doesn't give a shit about whether the backgrounds and parts in the picture he only hints at come across organically. the lady looks pretty cool in the second one, but again, completely decorative. and he gave fuck all about the rocks looking like shit. he even copied a part of the rocks on the lower right, leaving a clear line of the copied edge and doubling the texture, pretty much the most disgusting thing in digital art. he clearly thinks that he is as skilled as an impressionist … "I can just leave it like that, because I'm awesome" … If you are into this kind of negligence, your call.

/ic/ - feeding the trolls

>>3229824

>>3229808
At least, hes pretty skilled with drawing bodies. I like the way he gives his figures this porcelain look and the way he did the hands is really great. But backgrounds, surroundings = 1/10

>>3229819
he doesnt copy just to copy, he copies areas he wants to move and just makes that duplication and later on paints over it, stop being an aspie

>>3228960
>fags in /ic/ make beautiful art

>>3229851
>and later on paints over it
well, he didn't.

>>3229854
because the rocks arnt the focus point, stop being fucking retarded, ruan jia is known for rendering, he doesnt need your silly opinion on what needs to be done, he can leave shit as unfinished as he wants because you know what? the painting carries the point unlike your shitty autistic spewing about abstract art

>>3229856
That's a fairly disgusting picture you attached there. I see your taste and I understand where you're coming from, makes perfect sense.

Of course Ruan Jia doesn't care about my opinion. Does he care about yours? He doesn't even care about his backgrounds, lmao. He's a pretty careless man.

>>3229863
Sure dude.

I honestly prefer some variety in the type of content I enjoy

One day I can enjoy Ruan Jia's stuff but I also want to enjoy stuff that tries to say something else beyond "it looks good".

I mean if you wanna only see and make perfectly rendered anatomically accurate stuff all the time or passable stylized porn be my guest but I think we all can benefit from some variety.

>>3229883
>5e475b33gw1eolofvbk5ij20t(...).jpg
This backdrop works a bit better, however, on closer inspection, the rocks look like cut out cubes of some gelatine type. And it's all in such an annaturally green tint that you completely forget about the fact that he hardly creates space with that background. It's mostly weirdly flat allover. Which rocks are closer to you, which are in the distance? The "trees" in the left upper corner or whatever that mess is supposed to be are flat as well. There's a difference between generalized drawing to focus on the central figure and awkward sketching just to fill gaps.

To be fair, that kind of fantasy stuff is not my cup of tea at all.

>>3229885
>>3229863
yah dudes! whatever you say!

>>3229890
yah dude like you totally know what youre talking about man!

>>3229885
I'm with you on that.

>>3229891
nice to look at, certainly very impressive for a minute, but it becomes almost obscene with the crass, screaming colors after some time.

>>3229893
>schoolyard babbling
So, how am I wrong? Can you argue against it?

>>3228992
Why would you ever link an image like this? I'm attaching the linked image for future reference

>>3229893
>details, details, more details, more screaming colors
If that's what you like, have at it.
To me, it's just as apealing as this stuff

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wolf+moon+fantasy+girl&atb=v94-3&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images

>>3229897
I'm crazy like that. Thanks for the attachment.

>>3229893
But hey, on a more friendly side, you might enjoy the paintings by Jonas Burgert. The use of colors in that picture reminded me of his work. I don't love Jonas Burgert, but I saw his paintings in an exhibition and their scale alone is very impressive.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Jonas+Burgert&atb=v94-3&iax=images&ia=images

>>3229893
Jonas Burgert

>>3229898
I totally get you! you clearly have the superior taste here!

>>3229909
Come on dude, I was trying to be friendly. What do you think about Burgert?

>>3229909
>>3229891
Not the other guy but look
I'm not saying these guys aren't technically impressive and what I'm studying to become is more aligned to their stuff but it's like watching really technically competent with a lot of budget Hollywood stuff with a solid story.
It's good, it's technically sound but sometimes you just wanna watch something more emotionally charged even if it's not the most perfectly executed piece, you know what I mean?

Or sometimes not even that, just explore another aspect of the medium that's not the obvious thing in front of you.

>>3229939
>It's good, it's technically sound but sometimes you just wanna watch something more emotionally charged even if it's not the most perfectly executed piece, you know what I mean?
That's the thing with people who value effort, amount of detail and striking colors more than the concept or idea behind a piece. Their assessment is just not susceptible to any other appeal beyond their expectations. You can call it taste or you can call it tunnel vision.

>>3228960
its money laundering, I just cant believe its really rich fags buying this kinda crap, it has to be something shady

>>3229488
How is he a complete failure as an abstract artist? What is the metric you're using to measure how good someone is at abstract art?

Are you that samefag who defends abstract art in every thread, claiming there is a standard for what is good abstract art, but just either dodges the question every time when asked what that standard is, or gives a completely arbitrary and subjective answer such as "(((good))) composition and color"? At this point you're just a troll and don't know what you're talking about.

>>3230475
It appreciates in value. You have to remember that basquiat was doing some cutting edge bullshittery and the fact that the people consuming it didn't get it is part of what killed him. He made a statement making fun of bougie jews and they just treated it as more entertainment. I don't like his shit but the what he was doing was pretty amazing and a reminder of how fucked up the art world is.

>>3228984

So scribbles a 4yr old can do is better than fantasy work done by professionals?

>>3229894
>>3228984
Why are you acting like something cant be art through visuals alone? All that craftsmanship art in galleries like Da Vinci's proves you wrong.
Ruan Jia is a very plain, boring digital artist, his hues and da glow charms the masses, because, heh, pwetty colors is the only thing people care about. Good enough for exibition.

>>3231043
>>3231043
Well, DaVinci's stuff (and all renaissance masters' stuff) is not only is great craftmanship but it also reflects the philosophy of that era.

I'm not the MOMA guy, I think Ruan Jia is a great artist but I think that there are other angles in which to experience (making and/or consuming) art rather than just great craftsmanship, which is the merit I'd give guys like Basquiat who try a more visceral approach.

I just think that both angles have their merits and everyone should be allowed to enjoy either one or both without someone shitting on them.

>>3229897
>>3229883
>>3229808
why are the faces so flat? the colour fucking sucks on them, like jesus christ, it looks like a couple of bad rendered screenshots from a ps2 game
am i the only one seeing this, or am i just ignorant?

>>3230532
fantasy kitsch with sexy grills in loose armor has nothing to do with fine art.

>>3231340
not only are you ignorant but your a dunning kruger and have shit taste

>>3231354
and you obivously know what the requirements are for fine art huh mr i know everything about fine art.

>>3231953
In your time studying fine art in museums, what do you consider the differences and similarities?

>>3228969
basquiat died long ago

All you fag's are arguing about this while the real answers right in front of you.
Art without meaning is empty, bland and boring.
Art without technical skill feels lazy, off putting, and confused.
Neither is better than the other because both are lacking equally integral parts.

>>3231950
>Dunning Kruger!
>Dunning Kruger!
>Dunning Kruger!
>look how smart I am! Dunning Kruger, ya'll!

learn to criticise specifically, you parrot.

How come there is no forum/board for contemporary art discussion? I would like to learn about it and read the thoughts of people with knowledge in art. I know that there are books on art history but I would like to know what the current art landscape looks like.

>>3232013

No. Art is craft at a certain level and in a suitable medium. Thats all, no other definition works. The rest is superimposed tripe peddled by con artists. Art CAN have heaps of layered meaning to it, but its not a requirement. A well drafted figure study in charcoal will have people slack jawed, enjoying aesthetic experiences.

>>3232604

Why not join a cult and learn the scripture to gain prestige in the group from piety while you're at it? Same thing.

For the most part nobody's interested in the majority of the contemporary currents for the sake of them, so an anonymous board would have a weak appeal. If you can't gain asspats there's no point. Hell, it wouldn't get brought up even here if it wasn't for the bait potential.

I'm not saying there's nothing at all happening in "high art" right now, but its overall really ossified and stifled by the social game and gallery economy (inflating prices, selling to nouveau riche snobs, money laundering mobsters and the coopted government institutions). If you think you'll get enjoyment out of speaking to the typical fart sniffers and charlatans that saturate the scene you're in for a disappointment. You'd get more substance from a hundred vat-bred Zizek clones.

>>3232642
>nobody's interested in the majority of the contemporary currents for the sake of them

Why do you think that?

>>3232652

Because they're perfectly vacuous simulations crafted solely for self-promotion of individuals who generate and sustain them. They're fake, basically.

>>3232642
>A well drafted figure study in charcoal will have people slack jawed, enjoying aesthetic experiences.

A well drafted figure study will have people say "isn't that neat" and move on, while something with more meaning behind it will make people remember it afterwards.

Of course sometimes the figure drawing in itself can have meaning in itself but, for example, two guys have the same technical skills but one guy draws porn for a living and just wants to study, and the other does concept art but really likes to appreciate the human figure in itself and wants to really capture a part of the body that looks interesting to him, and both make a life drawing of the same model at the same time, it will end up showing in the final result.

Not saying that one way or the other has more value but thinking a fully mechanically drafted piece is inherently meaningful is just being dense.

>>3228984

I know this is bait, but holy shit. It really requires some kind of talent pretending to be that fucking snobbish.

>>3229209
Neues_Kleidungs_des_Königes

learn ur genetive case, pleb

>>3233210
You think it's bait, because you are on the ngmi side of the spectrum.

>>3233235
Wow, du kompletter Vollidiot. Das muss wohl bait sein. So bescheuert kann niemand sein. Das ist Althochdeutsch bzw. Satzumstellung, die eine Betonung bringt. "Die neuen Kleider des Königs" --> "Des Königs (!) neue Kleider"

>>3232768
You tried to sound cool and sophisticated, but you failed miserably.

Your populistic artworld-bashing is the same kind that you'd get from a redneck with zero cultural education. You can congratulate yourself on that.

>>3232768
You tried to sound cool and sophisticated, but you failed miserably.

Your populist artworld-bashing is the same kind that you'd get from a redneck with zero cultural education. You can congratulate yourself on that. Just because you know jackshit about the artworld and find it "fake", doesn't mean you've understood in the slightest how it works, what you can and can't do in these circles and how you'd even get into them. You are a shabby little shitstain, barking at others who are better off.

Mostly money laundering.

http://mileswmathis.com/launder.pdf

>>3228960
>>while fags in /ic/ make beautiful art, and perfecting the craft, but earning pennies and scraps like slaves.
Is this really what you fucks think?

I wouldn't hire anyone off this board. Less than a percent of the posters here know even basic shit, but everyone claim they're doing studies 6 hours a day.

>>3228960

The emperor's new clothes, money laundering, death of the western culture, etc, etc... nothing new.

>>3233536
>money laundering
Will this be the time I finally get one of you parrots to give me a real example of how contemporary art is more vulnerable to money laundering than other eras?

>>3234386
>pre-dada piece takes weeks, months, possibly years to produce

>abstract piece can be made in an afternoon (if it even takes that long)

https://www.picassomio.com/art-articles/picasso-how-many-artworks-did-picasso-create-in-his-life-time.html

rich tax evaders and other white collar criminals then trade the pieces like baseball cards

Isn't it really interesting how every self important art student speaks using the exact same patterns? You can pick them out a crowd so easily.
Ignore pretentious fine art posters.
Ignore pretentious art establishment dicksuckers.
Both are terminal victims of delusions of grandeur on opposite ends of the spectrum.

>>3234391
>real example
I only ever get a variety of feels based shit like this. Never anything concrete. The fact of the matter is a huge part of the ease of which art can be used to launder money is down to the permissiveness of the gallery environment to take cash without questions and the culture of non-disclosure with auction houses. If you want to use a piece of art or a collection as collateral for a loan or to flip at an auction to clean up your money you want something with a steady value determined by the market and ideally something that you could see a return from at the same time.

>>3228960
If art was only about skill and beauty, I wouldn't be interested

tfw when post-anime phase retards shamble into video game illustration and think it is art, then get offended when it is seen as dog-shit by the masses.

>>3228970
Value is adding onto real art so fast that you can re-sell in a few years and make a wicked profit.

>>3234412
… says a creative cripple from the opposing team: illustrators, the true pieces of shit in art.
>m-muh commissions!
>muh low-paid jobs!
>fuck artists! so rich, so talented! must shit on modern art!

>>3233509
A lot of bold claims there backed up by absolutely fuck all evidence from somebody incredibly butthurt about modernism, there's a handful of quotes mostly as window dressing but all of the thruther tier shit is left unsupported.

>And we know from mainstream
news reports that part of the art market is fake. I am simply suggesting that most or all of it is. I don't have any specific evidence it is[...]
Really macerates my gooseberries

>>3228984
Do you recommended any books on how the art market works, I'm pretty good, fresh out of high school got my first exhibition in a small well recognised gallery, and get genuine compliments for my work. I'd like to understand the art market in order to produce art that appeals to the majority, I'm one for realism but not PHOTOCOPYCATism

~curious anon that found your post quite intriguing and partly true

>>3232013
Screencapped this, anon you're a lifesaver. Go get yourself a Bells

>>3236881
>I'd like to understand the art market in order to produce art that appeals to the majority

I've never heard somebody who calls himself an artist ever say that. That mindset is absolutely poisoneous.

If you want to make hip art that appeals to "the art market", copy Some Damien Hirst vinyl record splash paintings, copy some photo shit with a projector and kitsch it up with color splashes … do whatever the hell you want. You are not gonna make it with that mindset.

From

>>3228984
>"And you wonder why no one gives a fuck about your "art"?

to

>>3237210
>"That mindset is absolutely poisoneous."

So which is it, MOMAron? Should someone care what people think about their art or not? Or should we only care if it's the same insular group of psuedo-intellectuals that are so up their own ass they'd endlessly praise the work of a monkey?

>>3234575
For one thing no one calls the same artists to which you're referring talented and, with likely fewer exceptions than there are amongst the general population, hardly any of them are rich.

>>3237220
>no one the same artists to which you're referring talented

Sure, my child. Coming from you, a basement dwelling, art world hating little nobody. You just yell "the art world!" and you mean high priced art that you don't understand, although part of your hated "art world" is also young aspiring artists, who - unlike you - are paying and organizing their own exhibitions with peers. You are so far away from all this.

The art world is your bogeyman, because you don't understand anything about it, not even the entry level shit. "ngmi" is the perfect description for you.

You are dumb enough not to understand that you are supposed to develope your own work, and NOT copy what fucking trends are cool at the moment. But that's just beyond you. Read a fucking book for a change.

>>3228960
The art market is a game that rich people play. They're not making statements about the "objective" worth of the pieces they buy, or saying they're objectively worth that much money. It's a purely arbitrary game that they play amongst themselves where the goal is to look cool to your friends by spending large amounts of money. They could play with anything, but for a variety of reasons they just happen to play with art. Once you realize this, you can take the whole thing a lot less seriously and it won't bother you.

And then you get some honest people like DiCaprio here >>3228961 who just say, hey, I'm fucking rich and I want this thing, what's it matter to me if I pay $850k for it?

For what it's worth, I like the OP drawing a lot.

>>3237220
>Should someone care what people think about their art or not?
You know, with each statement you make about how you see art and art production, it becomes more and more apparent how lost you are. No artist should put the thought of "will they like it?" above the most important thing: doing it, enjoying it, producing sincere pieces that come from YOU.

>>3237220
>Look! I hate this particular art piece! Agree with me!
You are prancing around with shit art installations that aren't any better than very smart non-sequitur jokes, as if that's ALL there is to it. And you can give examples as much as you want. There are art pieces like the massive land-art projects by Christo and you will find people who admire it and people who hate it alike. So what's your fucking point? Do you want to let everyone know: "I don't get it, thus it must be money laundering Jew shit art!" ?
Chris Ofili, Tal R, Georg Baselitz … you can shit on them as much as you want. You will never reach their league, so you are upset and shitpost here.

>>3228960
>Look at this drawing! It's so simple! No fundies! Back to gesture drawing, Mr. Basquiat - HAHAHA!
Look at you.

>>3237210
They don't say it, but many of the successful artists are marketers first and foremost. They're salesmen, persuaders. They are selling themselves and their art. Some people are naturally skilled at such things to the point that they don't know it's what they're doing, others are Jeff koontz and have their tacky garbage in Versailles. Everything is a carefully constructed at that merely looks like the total opposite.

>>3237250
They like it, it makes them think thoughts they like thinking and it's endlessly interpretative. It's a money game as well, but it's still art doing what art does.

>>3237273
Is this bait?

Shitting on Chris Ofili would be redundant now, wouldn't it?

>>3237228
>you are supposed to develope your own work, and NOT copy what fucking trends are cool at the moment
>implying developing your own work isn't just another trend that's cool at the moment

>>3237398
>Is this bait? HHAHAHAHAHAHA IS THIS BAIT HAHAHAH???!?!??! LOL LMAO

>>3237411
>FUNNY PICSCHURE HAHAHAHAHHAA
>NO ARGUMENT; HAHAHA

/ic/ is 99% kids

>>3237411
>implying developing your own work isn't just another trend that's cool at the moment
No, let's not try and bring anything new into art. Let's just follow Loomis. Follow Vilppu. Hope for commissions. jerk off, eat, jerk off, draw shit on your wacom for hours. sob that nobody is interested, jerk off some more, sleep, eat Dorritos, draw some more on the Wacom, look at Anime and "port art" (haha), call mom, try to socialize, don't socialize, curse modern art, sleep, jerk off ….


ad infinitum.

>>3237411
>implying developing your own work isn't just another trend that's cool at the moment
No, let's not try and bring anything new into art. Let's just follow Loomis. Follow Vilppu. Hope for commissions. jerk off, eat, jerk off, draw shit on your wacom for hours. sob that nobody is interested, jerk off some more, sleep, eat Dorritos, draw some more on the Wacom, look at Anime and "porn art" (what a euphemism), call mom, try to socialize, don't socialize at all, shitpost about modern art, sleep, jerk off, browse /b/, copy gesture drawings from some generic asshole, eat more Loomis shit, resent all notions of the possibility to create art that stands out, because you suck, like the DUNNING KRUGER yapping kid, never grow up ….


ad infinitum.
This is /ic/

>>3237513
>name drops an artist that uses actual shit as a medium
>invites me to shit on him
>gets this mad when said artist's work is posted

>>3237535
you will always be butthurt that there is art out there and you have no idea what art is about.

that's the essence.
you are a child, a redneck when it comes to art reception.

>>3237535
Hey Nambo-Jambo, he may use shit as a medium, but your works ARE shit and nothing else.

>>3239670

>>3239673
Nambo-Jambo, the Loli pedo, complaining about modern art again. Groundhog day on /ic/

>>3239676
Cringe

>>3239676

>>3239688
>a guy who loves looking at little children and has a thing for penguins
>also, loves to anonymously shit on modern art on the internet

cute.
ngmi

>>3239692
> ngmi