/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>babby doesn't know how to market himself and has to make a thread about it
Never change, draftcucks, never change.

>>3239600
>draftcucks
DELET

>>3239599
Untitled, the smallest Loli by the japanese digital fartist Nambo, who hates modern art. sells for: $0

>>3239599
you need more Twombly in your life

>>3239599
Cy Twombly has a unique take on sculptures
I find his sculptures a bit more impressive than his paintings, although his monumental works on canvas are really enigmatic seen in real life. As with any painting works, Twomblys works need to be seen face to face. No 600 x 800 px JPEG can do it justice. It's like watching a theatre play on your iPhone instead of buying tickets.

>>3239599
Cy Twombly the Lil Pump of the art world

>>3239623
Bitch Lil Pump is the Lil Pump of the art world. Slow your roll home slice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af2yvR4hVd8

>>3239638
So...this...is power of modern art

what I personally see in Twombly is the concept of the palimpsest: a piece of pergament, used to carve writing into (about the time before book printing was invented). It could be erased and reused over and over.
Society has revisted and reinterpreted ancient mythology over and over again. As times change, so do the interpretations change. Cy Twombly dealt with a lot of mythological figures, e.g. >>3239599 the Bacchus picture, the god of wine and extasy. The color, a blood or wine red and the movement coming directly from the entire arm and body, spinning motion, resulting in a striking, energetic painting, which aludes to the god bacchus / dionysos.
A topic hard to follow, especially for loli and porn painting digital fartists.

more Twombly palimpsest works.

>>3239642
>the Bacchus picture, the god of wine and extasy. The color, a blood or wine red and the movement coming directly from the entire arm and body, spinning motion, resulting in a striking, energetic painting, which aludes to the god bacchus / dionysos
As expected from pseud.

>>3239644
yup,
"Loli art is so much better! Loli digital shit should be exhibited and sold for millions of $$$. At least some pedo cunts can masturbate to it."

>>3239649
>implying art should sell for millions when the only reason it does so to begin with is to defraud the IRS and facilitate other white collar crime

>>3239649
>loli out of nowhere
wut
are you okay?

>>3239657
/ic/ is 80% porn and loli art and the rest is some concept art fantasy landscapes and /beg/ tier anatomy shit. so yeah, pic >>3239649 related

>>3239660
This little girl represent joy of newborn. It's not artist fault that you can't understand simple meanings even at surface level without $$$$ price tag. You're pseud.

>>3239599

I'm sorry that you can't understand higher art anon.

>>3239667
>This little girl represent joy of newborn.
This little Nambo represent erotic joy for children.
twitter.com/attall139

>you will never have a relaxed honest conversation about modern and contemporary art on imageboards without two groups on opposite extremes provoking each other and derailing threads into shitflinging contests

>>3239684
Wrong. You can't have a serious conversation on modern art on /ic/ - that's it.

It's premise is "Artwork/Critique" – but it should be "Illustration/Trolls"

>>3239642
Things I've learned from this post

>ic jerks off to loli
>pseudo-intellectuals jerk off to thesauruses

>>3239684

>you will never have a relaxed honest conversation about modern and contemporary art on imageboards

You can't have it full stop in real life either. Theres nothing to discuss about these scam artists, their position in the art world and rich backers are the only things "elevating" the art, not the art itself. If this guy was a bum of a recluse in some nondescript small town, he would've been the village crazy and nothing more.

>>3239600
>doesn't know how to market himself
It would certainly be nice to have 46 million dollars, but the very low probability of success of pulling off a con like this means that my time is better spent elsewhere. You can't reduce it all to just "marketing". Obviously a lot of it is luck, who you know, etc. If you could make 46 million dollars by just "marketing yourself" then there would be a lot more rich people.

>>3239620
>no jpg can do it justice
This is a very good point. I remember when my university had a small art show, and I picked up a guidebook at the door. There were thumbnail pictures of all the works, and there was one very subtle abstract work, sort of a faint red circle on a black background and I thought "that looks boring as shit". Walking through the exhibit I came upon one work and I thought "whoa, that's really cool," and then I realized that it was the same work that I had just called boring a minute ago, when I only had the thumbnail to judge by. So experiencing works as they were intended to be experienced is important.

>>3239642
>resulting in a striking, energetic painting
No it doesn't. What you said just isn't true. You may as well be saying that the sky is covered in polka dots. It's just nonsense.

>>3239649
>Loli digital shit should be exhibited and sold for millions of dollars
No it shouldn't. I think that hardly ANY art should be sold for millions of dollars. If I was a very rich art lover then I could see myself spending over a million on, say, certain works by Da Vinci or Picasso, or even something like Duchamp's Fountain, something of monumental significance and influence that had earned a permanent place in art history. But 46 million for THAT thing? That's just rediculous. There are so many better things you could soend 46 million on. Makes me think that money laundering is the only explanation.

>>3239668
I'm quite comfortable in my ability to understand art. I enjoy plenty of weirder stuff. Just not the OP piece.

>>3239698
>Makes me think that money laundering is the only explanation.
>thinks that modern art = art market
lol, yeah sure. keep confusing two completely different fields. what's your fucking point?

>>3239696
>so many big words! woooeeeh, me not like!
"pseudo-intellectuals jerk off to thesauruses"

>>3239698
>No it doesn't. What you said just isn't true. You may as well be saying that the sky is covered in polka dots. It's just nonsense.
I can't make you see things that you have no eyes for. You don't have to love Cy Twombly, no one has to love any artists work. But if you come criticize shit based only on the prize that the insane art market pays for important art pieces, you will get your counter-arguments alright.

>>3239697
This. You can already see the state of modern artists here. Just look at this crazy newfag >>3239612 who post Nambo something in every thread at first page. Hell I don't know why he posting completely unrelated to /ic/ jap artist everywhere. What the fuck?

>>3239697
Do you really think that people get into expensive art schools and make paintings for the sole purpose of a small chance of becoming popular and getting rich?

>>3239704
Nambo is on here and shits on modern art constantly. It's very related to ongoing /ic/ threads, ye cunt. Quite possibly, he opens a "modern art sucks!" thread everyday.

>>3239698
>You can't reduce it all to just "marketing". Obviously a lot of it is luck, who you know, etc
That's marketing. Most people can't do it and don't even exist in the same headspace. There's an assumption that art has to be "good" or you have something unique to sell, which is true to some extent, but even down in the trashfire of mediocrity that I call home, you can create a fame of reference around your work and leverage social media to appear to have all those things. You just tell people they're seeing what they want to and let them sell it for you. Furfags and fine art are eerily similar.

>>3239706
Who the fuck is Nambo?

>>3239599

this is art on 4chan and /ic/:
>>>/b/754085179

>cartoon porn, loli, shota, fetish crap
lmao

>>3239709
>/b/
>4chan
>literally newfag
What's going on

>>3239708
>>3239712

Nambo ( twitter.com/attall139 ) is a little piece of shit japanese digital fartist, who likes opening threads like this one every other day. He's probably responsible for half of these "modern art sucks!" rants.

>>3220291

while he himself is a loli drawing, skinny and pale little waste of organic matter.

Why are people responding to the loli modern art guy and his obvious bait?

>I-I-Its not shit
>you just don't get it
>that's like, just your opinion man
>You can't judge it unless you've seen it in real life
>I bet you draw anime
>I bet you do digital
>I bet you don't make as much as damien hirst
>palimpsest

>>3239698
>This is a very good point. I remember when my university had a small art show, and I picked up a guidebook at the door. There were thumbnail pictures of all the works, and there was one very subtle abstract work, sort of a faint red circle on a black background and I thought "that looks boring as shit". Walking through the exhibit I came upon one work and I thought "whoa, that's really cool," and then I realized that it was the same work that I had just called boring a minute ago, when I only had the thumbnail to judge by. So experiencing works as they were intended to be experienced is important.
That's the problem with most folks on /ic/ who think that it's enough to google-search an artist, look at some thumbnails and then they think they've "studied" the artists work. Illustrators who only work digitally are so used to the illuminated screen and haptic of their medium that they believe it is a proper means to look at fine art as well. Seeing a painting in real life and looking at it on the internet is an entirely different experience. If it was enough to look at art on the computer, the wouldn't be any museums, galleries or any art collections anymore since the introduction of the internet.

>>3239715
Is this bait? Is this your post too >>3239642 ?

>>3239722
>screams of agony from a poor digital fartist, realizing that he has no chance in discussing modern art or being anywhere near it.

I'm amused.
Nambo Jambo, the butthurt loli faggot.

>>3239727
is this bait? lmao
haha is this bait?

so funny haha
is this bait?

good point.

>>3239722
>draw traditionally
>bland photocopy reeeeeee shit soulless art
Pure gold.

>>3239722
>look how I can copy a shitty snapshot of granny!
>I'm an artist! I'm just as good in "traditional media!" Why am I not as well-known as Cy Twombly? boohoo

Why do you call this abomination art. It is just a confused person in a labyrinth of ideas despaired that he never finds the exit and he is just masturbating.Farting is also expression, but we dont call that art.

Moma anon is from discord. It's RP.
>tfw no mods

Gvfjbfhgfffffyuuuub arghhhhhhhhh lolwut

Look at my linguistic art above ppl. So elaborate, so full if meaning.

>>3239728
>>3239730
>>3239732
>>3239734
keep grasping, if you throw out enough shit eventually you will get a description that sounds a bit like me

>>3239700
What are you talking about?

>>3239703
>the insane art market
Well, if we can agree on that, then we already agree on the most important thing.

Look, I'm sympathetic to what you say about having "eyes" for the painting. I like a lot of art too that other people don't appreciate, and I feel like they might be able to appreciate it if they just slowed down a little and had the patience to get out of their comfort zone. So if you genuinely love Twombly's work then I don't want to devalue that, and I'd be willing to hear more about what value you find in it and how you engage with it.

My main claim would be that this painting is simply not worth 46 million dollars, but then, I don't think that there are that many people, if any, who actually believe that. I'm sure the purchaser of the painting and the people who run the auction house are all cynically aware of the fact that they're just showboating for other rich people. So I'm probably just preaching to the choir there.

To push it a little further, I do think that many people in the "art system", be they students, museum curators, the artists themselves, etc, have a vested interest in maintaining that the sort of works they create (like the Twombly work in the OP) are "higher" than works of "popular" art like anime, video games, etc, and I think these claims are unjustifiable. The fact that certain works sell for such outrageous amounts help reinforce their claims of superior quality and value.

>>3239743
Nambo is above modern art, don't you get it? His loli art is "about the joy of newborn"...

>>3239746
I'm not nambo, I have no interest in him

>>3239746
saved

Doublechecked other sites . This is NOT bait, it is real.

>>3239752
He's just very good at what he does.

Anyone who sees anything in abstract modern art that isn't a naked emperor is just an impressionable college student who is either considering dropping out of actual learning to try a jab at this circlejerking bubble or a feeble mind who has never reflected on anything on his own. Being presented with the concept of Modern Art, he is baffled at how intelligent and groundbreaking of a concept it is, and is now converted to the religion of non-representativeness. That's what sheeple do.

Either way, kill yourself.

Here's an arguably decent abstract piece, by the way. It shows some composition and color instead of just looking like shitstains on a canvas.

>>3239612
>>3239649
>>3239674
>>3239746
Woah, I like his work. Thanks for sharing.

>>3239754
>>3239752
Not so good. Everything started from this >>3237722 post when other troll BTFOed his portrait sketch meme. But there is no way for him to find original author. Yet somehow he found him and was able to type 南保あたる. Impossible for his RP.

>>3239297
holly shit, now that's what I call butthurt

>>3239705
yes

>>3239638
lil' monkey fella made quite a career for 'imself

>>3239599
If you want to make it, you better be prepared to suck on some Jewish dick

>>3239915
Jews are beautiful, and they're all circumcised, so honestly it could be worse. Idk if you've seen Alison Brie but by god

>>3239735
>Farting is also expression, but we dont call that art.

Please consider shit in a can

>>3239934
>>3239934
>>3239934

>>3239915
>If you want to make it, you better be prepared to suck on some Jewish dick
Depends on what you mean by "make it". If you want to make it among the "right" people, the NYC art circles and the famous critics and professors, then yeah. If you just want to do good work, then no, and in fact it obviously is an active hindrance. I think artists like Miyazaki and Amano have "made it" more than most living artists who are respected by the high art establishment right now. Their work is beloved by millions of people, what more could you ask for?

>>3239599
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand this type of art. The meaning is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of art theory most of the context will go over a typical observer’s head. There’s also the artist’s post-modern outlook, which is deftly woven into his masterpiece - his personal philosophy draws heavily from his personal experiences, for instance. The buyers understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these artworks, to realize that they’re not just art- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike contemporary and modern art truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the deeper meaning in Jackson Pollock’s “Number 5” which would never have come into existence if Jackson Pollock only painted what he already knew. . I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as the modern artist's genius wit unfolds itself on the canvas they painted on. What fools.. how I pity them.

And yes, by the way, i DO have an art peice. And no, you cannot see it. It’s for the art gallerias’ eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they’re within 10000 dollars of my price range (preferably higher) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

>>3239979
You joke, but it's true.

[money laundering intensifies]

>>3239620
>As with any painting works, Twomblys works need to be seen face to face. No 600 x 800 px JPEG can do it justice. It's like watching a theatre play on your iPhone instead of buying tickets.

majestic-tier trolling. top-tier marks for verisimilitude.

>>3239968
by
>make it

I meant in the gallery auction scene.

Obviously, progress and skill is independent of Jewish
influence or markets. But it is dependent on pay.

>>3239599
i wonder sometimes if more people would understand art if the prices weren't ridiculous.

it's really not a bad painting, but i think when you try to judge it on the scale of millions and millions i can see why people can't see how it's worth that (because it isn't) and how that makes them dismiss it as worthless instead of being able to evaluate it as a work of art.

>>3239734
>an artist can reproduce things from sight
Yes, that is the first step.

>>3240350
from sight and a photo aren't the same thing mon frere

>>3240353
You can't see photos? I can.
Is this what talent is?

>>3239599
>take a lecture on modern art
>professor spends the first couple sessions regurgitating the greenberg paradigm
>then turns around and lays out how it was all state-sponsored anti-communist propaganda

>>3240499
Yea, and people still don't get it.
Modern Art is a Jewish institution
MoMa was created by the Rockefeller's.
It promotes Jewish degenerate philosophy which is why modern art is so ugly.

>>3240371
yes i can see a bit of paper, do you do trompe-l'œil, if so i apologise

>>3240518
The nazis attempts at reviving classicism were just as cancerous though. State-sponsored deconstructionist art or state-sanctioned neoclassicist-art, both are soulless, inhuman crap. Only the synthesis of the dionysian and the apollonian art can save us from the forces of totalitarianism and nihilism desu.

>>3240532
except for soviet realism which is all great

>>3240537
>(((realism)))
sure thing buddy.

>>3240532
>dionysian and the apollonian art can save us from the forces of totalitarianism and nihilism desu.

Faggot.

>>3240541
it's just what it's called, i didn't make up the name, you don't like popkov and those guys?

>>3240532
>Only the synthesis of the dionysian and the apollonian
Hi. Do you like Nietzsche? I like Nietzsche a lot. It's hard to have a good conversation with anyone about him though. Everyone either tries to completely whitewash all of his more controversial views, or they go full edgelord and only focus on the edgiest things he said without appreciating the full complexity of his thought. It's a shame desu.

>>3240641
did nietzsche go into that? my philosophy 101 memory is bad, i thought it was more of a jung thang

>>3240652
The dionysian vs apollonian distinction was foundational to Nietzsche's entire body of work. Jung got the idea from Nietzsche. He drew a lot of inspiration from his works. (So did Freud; Nietzsche helped turn him on to the importance of dreams and the unconscious).

>>3240660
kk, maybe there's not much d&a in jung at all and i just kinda assumed their was because of all the archetype stuff

>>3239599
that selling for that much was a mistake thats for sure.

>>3239623
what am I looking at here?

Twombly is great. I was fortunate to see his final show of his work when he was still alive when it came to MoCA in LA.

>>3240641
Yeah, it's easy to see why people without a philosophical background misunderstand Nietzsche so badly (what are normies supposed to think when you tell them that they need to create their own values, they just don't have the conceptual framework to make sense of that).
Nietzsche didn't reject the concept of values, his entire point was that the history of mankind is the history of the evolution of ideas and social dynamics, that there are no absolute god-given truths which need to be held on to 'just the way they are now' for all time, that any system of morality is inherently flawed, and needs to be reborn and transformed time and time again to remain believable.
Fascism likes to pretend that it is a personification of Apollo himself, so fascist art goes for the realism memes, depicting the 'real life of real workers', when really it's just a laughable oversimplification of the human condition, whereas purely Dionysian art is the rejection of absolutes altogether, which is why it retreats further and further into empty abstractions, always denying itself.

If you're interested in reading up on this, birth of tragedy did a pretty good job of explaining the problems both of trying to repress change by holding the Apollonian up as the absolute and of giving yourself to pure Dionysian madness. Hegel also did a very good job of tracing the evolution of artistic forms in his lectures on aesthetics.

>>3240752
imagine being so vain that you feel the need need to blog about visiting a modern art exhibit, not on social media, but on fucking /ic/.

>>3239638
This is a realy comfy pallette.
I wonder if he choose the colors himself.

>>3241093
I've finished all of Nietzsche's published works except for Birth of Tragedy actually, and parts of All Too Human.

I still need to get around to Hegel's lectures on aesthetics. From just reading the first few pages, I feel like my own thinking about art is very similar to his.

>>3239599
When people gawk in disbelief at abstract art like this, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how art functions as an endeavor.

Painting realistic depictions of objects and arranging them in a "beautiful" fashion according to the classical laws of color, composition, etc, is essentially a solved problem. It's been done to death a million times. There's nothing more to discover there. So naturally, artists who want to keep pushing art forward will have to branch out and try new things.

Asking why artists don't make classical paintings is like asking a physicist, "why do you study the physics of electrons? Why don't you study the physics of a rubber ball bouncing in a room?" Or it's like asking a mathematician, "why don't you guys just spend your time coming up with new proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem?" It's naturally understood that people in other fields of work can't just endlessly reproduce the achievements of the past, they have to keep making new things. But for some reason, people want artists to keep doing the same thing over and over.

The problem though is that I think the paradigm of the lone painting is largely exhausted. I think we've seen all the major ways that color can be arranged on a canvas. That's why new movements in painting now get silly names like "zombie formalism"; they're not actually doing something genuinely original, they're just trying to resurrect old ideas. Maybe someone will come along and do something completely new and radical and shut me up, but that's how I see it.

So artists who want to keep doing new things need to give up the idea of the radically new and brilliant painting. I think the best opportunities lay in new technologies like video games, virtual reality, and the internet. I think these technologies enable many experiences that haven't even been imagined yet. So if an artist wants to stake out virgin territory, that's a good place to look.

>>3239599
suck some rich gallery curator's dick and get meme'd into fame

>>3239705

>Do you really think that people get into expensive art schools and make paintings for the sole purpose of a small chance of becoming popular and getting rich?

>>3241164

>Asking why artists don't make classical paintings is like asking a physicist, "why do you study the physics of electrons? Why don't you study the physics of a rubber ball bouncing in a room?" Or it's like asking a mathematician, "why don't you guys just spend your time coming up with new proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem?" It's naturally understood that people in other fields of work can't just endlessly reproduce the achievements of the past, they have to keep making new things. But for some reason, people want artists to keep doing the same thing over and over.

Problem is in order for a scientist to properly study electrons he first has to have a full understanding of all the things going with rubber ball bouncing in a room. Problem with modern "abstract art" is that new fledgling "abstract artists" have not bothered to learn the rules before they started breaking them. Therefore they cannot fully explore all the faculties of art because they do not understand its fundamentals. At best they occasionally make something good by accident out from hundreds if not thousands of works, things is children can make accidentally good drawing and paintings the same way.

Mark of a true artist is consistency. Not in subject matter or style but quality and brilliance.

How do modern art cucks still spout this bullshit when it's literally proven and documented that the whole culture arose from a CIA psyop during the cold war?

>>3241223
Contemporary art isn't modern art, which is 60 years old at this point. It also assumes that art is monolithic, which it isn't. Not to mention it still nails the culture from which it came. People get rock hard from inside jokes like that and pay a lot of money for it.

>>3241228
Well at least you admit it's all pretentious hipsters.
In-jokes, jesus christ.

>>3241229
I admit that it's a flaw as well. It doesn't reach the masses. But then the masses are fucking dumb and catering to your own kind reaches deeper. Otherwise the art world would like like popular YouTube speedpainters.

>>3241102
He did say he enjoyed eating the cobalt blue paint the most.

>>3241223
>CIA travelled back to the 1860s to invent modern art
Why didn't they just use their time machine to stop communism?

>>3241442
Because they already did, do you see communism nowadays?

>>3241446
Yes, but if they used time travel during the cold war to go back to the 19th century to invent or push modern art, why not just use the time machine to off key commies, thus preventing the cold war.

>>3241228
>Contemporary art isn't modern art

They are just categories, reality isn't as black and white as human-made terminologies. Contemporary art is heavily influenced by Modern Art.

>>3241536
Why are you going on about this time travel crap?

>>3241684
How about you read the reply chain you lazy fuck

>>3241704
I am the starter of that chain. Nothing in it suggests this time travel crap.

>>3239599
I've made excel spreadsheets that are more artistic than this.

>>3241735
I thought I was pretty fucking clear with the whole time travel thing. When you write shit like
>it's literally proven and documented that the whole [modern art] culture arose from a CIA psyop during the cold war
you are either suggesting the CIA travelled back in time to the middle of the 19th century to start or promote modern art; or more simply that you have no idea what you are fucking talking about and are just badly parroting some half-truth from an infographic you saw once. I thought it was obvious that I was implying the latter, rather than seriously suggesting the CIA had access to time travel just like my Westwood real time strategy games.

>>3241191
holy shit that's so fucked up that they went to art school and didn't want to make naturalist drawings or paintings ugh I'm so irritated

>>3241768
Well then what the fuck were they supposed to be learning?

Artists used to be craftsmen, "how can I make somebody feel this particular emotion?" now it's just pure expression without any concern for the viewer. If you do art for yourself, that's fine, but don't expect it to be any good.

>>3241758
I said the culture rose to prominence as a result of the CIA, not the entire discipline. And you're being willfully ignorant if you pretend it didn't "take off" and garnered widespread attention (and money) post-WW2.

>>3241787
>Artists used to be craftsmen
Man, I love that word so much better than artist. It actually sounds right because artist gives the impression of what you mention. From now on, craftsman instead of an artist.

>>3241791
But that's still equally fucking stupid. Big name impressionists like Monet and Renoir were firmly entrenched in the mainstream in their own lifetimes. Even Manet, who started relatively early in the period and died in 1883 at 51 was awarded the Légion d'honneur.

>>3239620
you get that all this shit is just a scam to sell child sex slaves right? sometimes they murder them also. for fun.

Don't blame the players, blame the game. It's not the businessmen's fault the art market so easily lends itself to tax evasion and money laundering. If there's holes in the attic, rodents will move in.

8deep16you

>>3241772
I think it's genuinely hilarious that the average /ic/ poster's ideal art school is just an atelier lmao

>>3242366
It's a good thing as long as you don't want to play the fine art game. Shit is fucked up over here

>>3241882
>you get that all this shit is just a scam to sell child sex slaves right?
You can feed into your conspiracy theories all you want. Some guy here is spreading the
>"CIA invented modern art to mess with everyone hurr durr"
shit constantly.
It really all comes down to your own experience. If something rings with you, evokes some kind of thought or emotion in you, maybe even something you haven't felt before, that it's good art … to you! I've had people react to a series of drawings of mine very strongly and one guy was so eager to have a set of the drawings, that he gave me half his months wage to buy them (I previously told him I was not going to sell them for cheap). The best compliment you can get is when someone you don't know is deeply touched by your work in some way. It is addicting.

If you manage to put something of yourself in your work in the most honest, straighforward way you can do, it will catch on to people. That's why you can do as many anatomical studies, perspective studies as you want. If your work lacks these qualities - honesty, thought, struggle, whatever you needed bring to it - it's worthless.

All you folks on here who quickly dismiss any kind of modern art for "money laundering", intellectual masturbation or a game of pretense have either never made that experience for lack of exposure (not having seen enough contemporary works for comparison) or only seen the shitty sides of it - the hipster academic works, the midlife-crisis works by some late hippy cunts or any other really hobby-level take on it. Somehow, some of you like to be proud to have such a prejudice against contemporary art. If everybody was thinking like you, there would be absolutely no progress in that field whatsoever. There would only be constant repetition of established fields: your concept art, character design and fancy fantasy landscape junk; cheap digital porn illustrations, cheap manga etc. etc.

>tl;dr: stop being nostalgic and embrace what's new

>>3241882
>you get that all this shit is just a scam to sell child sex slaves right?
You can feed into your conspiracy theories all you want. Some guy here is spreading the
>"CIA invented modern art to mess with everyone hurr durr"
shit constantly.
It really all comes down to your own experience. If it rings with you, evokes some kind of thought or emotion in you, maybe even something you haven't felt before, then it's good art … to you! I've had people react to a series of drawings of mine very strongly and one guy was so eager to have a set of the drawings, that he gave me half his months wage to buy them (I previously told him I was not going to sell them for cheap). The best compliment you can: someone you don't know is deeply touched by your work. When you get to that point, it becomes even more addictive.

If you manage to put something of yourself in your work in the most honest, straighforward way you can do, it will catch on to people. That's why you can do as many anatomical studies, perspective studies as you want. If your work lacks these qualities - honesty, thought, struggle, whatever you needed bring to it - it's worthless.

All you folks on here who quickly dismiss any kind of modern art for "money laundering", intellectual masturbation or a game of pretense have either never made that experience for lack of exposure (not having seen enough contemp. works for comparison) or only seen the shitty sides of it - the hipster academic works, the midlife-crisis works by some late hippy cunts or any other really hobby-level take on it. Somehow, some of you like to be proud to have such a prejudice against contemporary art. If everybody was thinking like you, there would be absolutely no progress in that field whatsoever. There would only be constant repetition of established fields: your concept art, char. design and fancy fantasy landscape junk; cheap digital porn illustrations, cheap manga etc. etc.

>tl;dr: stop being nostalgic and embrace what's new

>>3239745
>and I'd be willing to hear more about what value you find in it and how you engage with it.
see >>3239642

I've seen works by Cy Twombly in three difference museums in major cities. I was aversed to his child-like, art brut drawing at first glance, but if you let it sink in, there is a very distinct underlying dynamic in his works. The mythological alusions he uses just by planting the words on the canvas bring all the ideas you have about the mythological stories into your mind (if you've done your reading on ancient mythology at all). He doesn't just use these typical, violent gesture based traces as a structure, he also uses simplified symbols and has a distinct, subtle way of employing colors. The surface of his works allover reminds you of decay and repairments, much like the japanese Kintsukuroi principle - a romanticism of destruction and death.

>>3239690
>implying modern art is art
/ic/ isn't just illustrators, it's sculptors, painters, photographers, 3d designers, animators.
Just because they don't like abstract wankery doesn't mean they're close minded or niche, if anything, I've found modern art and its historians to be far more sneering and condescending towards figurativism than vice versa

>>3244722
>Just because they don't like abstract wankery doesn't mean they're close minded or niche

Are you even listening to yourself?

>>3244722
yeah you keep roaming in your fantasy world, kid. something around 80% of /ic/ fags are "porn art" and furry degenerates, the rest is made up of a large part of tourists + trolls from /b/ and only a fleeting amount of actual artists.

>it's sculptors, painters, photographers
animators and 3d designers are close to illustration and concept art faggots. but there are close to zero painters or sculptors on /ic/.

>>3244182
>>tl;dr: stop being nostalgic and embrace what's new
embarrassing.

>>3245050
>embarrassing.
cheap, worthless reply

>>3245029
Porn, any kind of porn, is unironically more valuable than much of the work done by "actual artists" today. I am completely sincere about this. Porn at least makes people happy. But much of the work done by contemporary artists will be forgotten, assuming that people eventually wake up and realize that the emperor has no clothes.

>>3245054
>getbikestolencomic.jpg

>>3245054
>Porn, any kind of porn, is unironically more valuable than much of the work done by "actual artists" today.
You are part of the joke mindset that you get on /ic/. It's so fucking laughable. If I met any of you guys in real life and we'd be discussing art, I would just burst into laughter. It's like fucking cleaning ladies trying to talk about rocket science. It's just cringeworty and embarrassing.
The contempt you little shitbrains have for modern art mostly comes from your enviousness and lack of skills. You defend your stance of "individual styles are bad", because most of you follow down the path of faceless learning-by-the-book … pirated pdfs of Loomis, Proko and the other faggots you grab from the web. You are creative lemmings, all going down the same fucking road. No wonder you sorry cunts are so envious and malevolent towards contemporary art. It just doesn't mix, concept art illustration shit and fine art, it's like oil on water.

>>3245054
>unironically states that the evanescence of art is bigger than that of porn
>whitewashes porn addiction as it "makes people happy" … yeah
>throw in some /ic/ meme for good measure …. "emprerrrs new clooofths, hurr durr!"

I would say you are around 14yrs old

>>3245053
The problem is that 'modern art was a CIA scheme' isn't just a meme. We invested pretty heavily in Greenberg and his pals to artificially turn them into cultural icons and help them get their art exhibited in Europe as part of the Marshall plan. I don't mind if you want to buy into modern art - it's not a secret soviet weapon that will turn you into a commie, just boring, gimmicky crap.

My problem is your attitude toward your own enjoyment of things. What's with this pathetic excuse of "if it appeals to you then it's good art?". If that's your standard for judging the quality of anything then your opinion is irrelevant, you're outright admitting to it being exclusively subjective, that you have no standard by which you could justify your views or which you could use to change anyone's mind about the quality of modern art - all you can do is resort to 'you just gotta be open, dude' 'you'll know it when you 'feel' it, dude'.

>open frist page
>moma shitposter in every thread
>again
just end your live

>>3245079
>your live
no u.

>>3245075
>What's with this pathetic excuse of "if it appeals to you then it's good art?". If that's your standard for judging the quality of anything then your opinion is irrelevant

Of course it is subjective! How would you ever find anything objective in art reception? Some of art history is highly suggestive, like the shit that Peggy Guggenheim pushed –not all of her choices are really good. The art world on the receiving end is a vague, arbitrary, sometimes money-driven, sometimes democratic (art that appeals to the majority of people / art that stays a nieche thing) apparatus. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about art and that's brilliant. An artwork ideally has absolutely no function, no use, no aspect that serves a linear purpose – like, say, a tool. Art ideally plays with your mind, shows you a different angle. If all you have to give to contemporary art is your hate and blatant ignorance that you take pride in, then it is not for you.

Concept art has a linear purpose. It serves as a basis for aspects of a computer game, movie, animation etc.
An abstract painting by Richard Diebenkorn has no linear purpose other than doing something with YOU, the viewer. It can remind you of certain shapes, evoke some memories, act as a conglomerate of different haptic impressions, structures, movements, shapes … but all of this happens individually and hardly any experience will be like another, depending on the person. If those thoughts are bullshit to you, so be it. You can give in to conspiracy shit theories all you want. Say that all modern art is some kind of scam, secret agenda, money laundering …. It is what it is to you. And if it's nothing more than this conspiracy shit, than I just don't give a fuck. You can over-intellectualize art all you want, but you are missing the point and that is to have fun with it.

Some like to put art on a pedestal as if it wasn't something mundane. As if there weren't millions of people engage in activity.
To me art is more clear when you think about the roots of the word. Art as in state of the art - a craft.
In other words, set of skills, abilities and techniques honed to produce high value good. And by high value I mean high value to it's intended consumer.

This definition is quite intuitive and encompasses all kinds of art.
For example modern art consumers seek prestige and recognition (and a good investment) which are achieved with self-promotion, socialization, networking and a dab of colour theory.
I think you get what I mean. Producing masterpiece of modern art requires mastery of quite different skills than for example classic art or concept art. If you wouldn't take for free a piece of craftsmanship, but see others willing to spend money for it, then you're just not the end client for it.

In the end of the day every artist is just a craftsman who produces wares for his specific kind of clientele. Value judgments are all subjective.

>>3245117
would you say that a degree of abstraction (consistent stylistic abstraction) can be one of those "skills, abilities and techniques"?
is a realistic representation of something more worth to you than an idealistic, approached representation?

>>3245063
>The contempt you little shitbrains have for modern art
I think you're making too many assumptions about the people you're talking to. There are plenty of 20th century and contemporary artists I enjoy. I'm a huge Jeff Koons fan. I've even grown to appreciate Twombly more since creating this thread. I still think the piece in the OP is pretty crap and not anywhere near worth its price tag, but I like the Twombly pictured here a lot better. It's just that a ton of contemporary art happens to be shit, or at the very least it's undeserving of the position it's accorded in high culture.

>You defend your stance of "individual styles are bad"
When people here shit on "style", they're mainly targeting shitty teenagers on deviantart who are more concerned with "finding a style" rather than actually learning how to draw.

>It's like fucking cleaning ladies trying to talk about rocket science.
And here we have an excellent illustration of one of the biggest problems with contemporary art.

There's a general fear that art by its nature isn't good enough. It's too playful, too simple, not serious enough, not conceptual enough. How much can you really respect a man who sits around making colored marks on paper all day, for no other reason than that he finds these marks pleasing? We might respect his as a craftsman, but even then, is his craft really an important one? There's a fear that if there isn't a complex enough conceptual apparatus behind your work then people won't take you seriously, and an even deeper fear that those people will turn out to be correct and that you don't DESERVE to be taken seriously.

(cont.)

>>3245129
(cont.)

A pretty picture is just a pretty picture, nothing more. People may enjoy it for a time, but eventually it will get lost in the endless stream of thousands of other pretty pictures made by thousands of other people, and it will die and you the artist will die and that will be the end of it. For the artist with an anxiety of death, who cannot recognize the value in anything transient and impermanent, this is an unbearable realization. But that's when a solution occurs to him. A picture, being a material thing, is subject to death and decay, but an IDEA is eternal. The solution is to make art more conceptual and intellectual.

Thus begins the process of turning art into not-art, something more worthy, the process of transmuting art into philosophy and science and sociology. No longer is the artist just making convincing pictures of the objects around him; that might be a fine task for a mere craftsman, but what we have now is a true INTELLECTUAL on our hands. We've left the colored mark-making behind; now what the artist is doing is deconstructing gender, exploring social inequality, real heavy-duty tasks befitting a great mind. The rules of perspective and lighting necessary to paint a good portrait are simple enough to be mastered by a high schooler, but no one ever got famous for just doing what a high schooler could do, so that obviously has to go. We have a much better conceptual apparatus now, one that at the very least requires you to be an expert on art history so you can "contribute to the dialogue", and you should probably know literary theory and modern philosophy and political science as well, just to get you started. By mastering and utilizing this conceptual apparatus, the artist hopes to leave a mark on history as permanent as the mark of Pythagoras or Newton. He will at least have the tools to prove to everyone that he's a Real Genius, and that he must be accorded the proper respect.

(cont.)

>>3245130
(cont.)
The obvious corollary of this is that the material reality of the art must be deemphasized and the concept must be made supreme.

That's my problem with contemporary art. It's based on fear and lies. Its aims and methods, the "dialogue" that artists are engaged in, its entire conceptual apparatus, it's all a complete fabrication. The entire conceptual superstructure that we've inherited is not immanent in art at all, but is instead an entirely arbitrary game that was invented merely for the sake of having a game to play, except no one seems to be honest enough with themselves to understand why it was invented and that it was invented. Or at least they won't say it publicly. Artists did try to turn art into rocket science, but only because they felt that deep down, the rocket scientists were fundamentally BETTER PEOPLE than they were. They watched the rocket scientists fly to the moon while they sat at their easel chasing phantoms.

Ironically, no other batch of artists than the current one has had so much to say about the irreducibly social and cultural element of all works of art, and yet no other batch of artists has been so possessed by a desire to step outside of culture and to stand atop the waves of history, so that they might never be washed away by its relentless currents.

I don't really have any recommendations here. I just think that people should be more honest with themselves, is all.

And before you think this explanation is absurd, remember that you said that the people who disagreed with you were driven by envy, and ask yourself if you and the artists you admire are driven by a form of envy as well.

>>3245129
To state it once more, concerning your first paragraph:
art != art market
The int. art market is an entirely different branch in the art world. The two aren't necessarily connected, even so much that some artists openly despise the strange behavior of art prices and sales. But like any other person, an artist goes by the saying: Never look a gift horse in the mouth. – because selling your art will enable you to get a bigger studio, buy better colors, more materials and so on. Who wouldn't want that for themselves?

>When people here shit on "style", they're mainly targeting shitty teenagers
Well, if you use the worst examples as a point of orientation, than all you get is edgy discussions. The deviant teens you speak of have no means of judgement, because they simply haven't had any exposure to art yet. They are blinded by the working process.

> It's too playful, too simple …
>There's a fear that if there isn't a complex enough

I will disagree. For me personally, I don't over-intellectualize art at all. I find humor one of the most important aspects in art. I want to be able to laugh about a painting, no matter how serious its topic might be. If it has elements that seem funny to me, I will laugh about, ridicule it. There is plenty of self-irony in art. Some people seem to think that going to an art museum is somehow like going to church or doing a difficult test in school – it's a form of entertainment! You should enjoy it and not break your head over it endlessly.

I mention it time and again: Installation art, "protest art" or any other branch of overcomplicating artforms that require you to read a 200 page abstract to even begin to understand its implications, is more of a piece of culture for demonstration purposes than art. If it lacks aesthetics and openness entirely, it becomes shallow and driven by a certain function that it has to fulfill.

The premise that cont. art is "super smart and arrogant" comes from the fear in people that they might embarrass themselves, if they "dont get it". You should mostly just enjoy it for what it is and if it means something to you that other people don't see in it, that's fine.

>>3245130
>A pretty picture is just a pretty picture, nothing more.
But it can still be rooted in its respective time. A picture painted today may be highly influenced by the new media, by the colors we encounter in everyday life, the way we interact with each other, the flatness of digital media or the three-dimensional aspect of city landscapes, anything really.

Of course, by creating a piece of art, the artist wants to endure and be in peoples minds even beyond his own death. That's one of the beautiful aspects with art. They way you look at a certain painting at the age of 17 and some ten years later can be totally different. The way we look at old paintings has changed strongly as well, as society has changed. Museums do exploit their collections quite often by displaying them slightly differently arranged and claiming that its "a revelation" all of a sudden. Still, some of the implications stay true. Works of art are flexibel and the way we look at them can change dramatically. (take the Narcissus theme in painting for instance, very relevant in times of social media, or any hand mirror that now looks like someone is taking a selfie)

>>3245063
>The contempt you little shitbrains have for modern art mostly comes from your enviousness and lack of skills

Nope, we just think a lot of them suck, as in low effort in concept and execution, like the one in OP's picture. It is okay to not like art just as it is okay that you do not like pornographic art. Are you envious and lack skill just because you don't like pornographic art?

>No wonder you sorry cunts are so envious and malevolent towards contemporary art

Modern and contemporary art is supposed to be controversial, extremely subjective, and difficult to like. It's no wonder so many people don't like it. Normies tend to like Modern and Contemporary art only because they read that they should like it, they saw it in a museum so it must be good, some rich person bought it for a fortune, the CIA brainwashed them, or their friends like it, when they don't know what they're looking at. Apparently nobody told them it is okay to not like Modern and Contemporary art or to think for themselves and come to a conclusion, it's always an appeal to an external authority, and I find /ic/ refreshing in that regard when they are so crass about not liking Modern or Contemporary art.

I mean it's not hard to see the most obvious reason why we don't like Modern or Contemporary art. We come from a different sub-culture and have different tastes. It's life; other people may not agree with you. Don't get so riled up, just move on.

>>3245158
>and I find /ic/ refreshing in that regard when they are so crass about not liking Modern or Contemporary art.

Are you kidding me? Thats the mainstream opinion. Its in popular media and people on internet forums rant about it any time its brought up.

>>3245128
You asking that question suggests to me you already know my answer, but, yes everything and anything that creates value can be included in "skills, abilities and techniques" of the trade.

Personally, as a someone more focused on objects then people I admire uniqueness of a piece. A piece is also an artefact of a process and circumstances, it can be collected and be learned from.
So to answer your question I both value realistic and approached representations, but when putting against each other a piece from each category I will compare uniqueness of each based on context of other works in respective category.

>>3245158
>Nope, we just think a lot of them suck, as in low effort in concept and execution,
I mirror this oppinion. Low effort is, in vast amount of cases very unoriginal.

>>3245132
You are making good points. It is challanging and confusing how self-referential art can be these days. It can be completely annoying and offputting, but it can also be fun. Art that looks back at its own history to become something new (l'art pour 'l'art) is quite a fun concept. The same goes for all other areas. Computers have a virtual "desktop", mobile phones have some analogue sounding "bell ring tones" and when you take a picture, there is a shutter sound, although that whole deal is completely absurd. We are a nostalgic society, but some people believe that that nostalgia is a burdon and blocks new developements. Artists like David Bowie have always embraced new developements to the fullest. You can like or dislike Björk for her quirkiness, but she's also pushing boundaries with her VR implementation and the 360° video stuff.
It's just sad how quite a lot of folks on /ic/ have this preconceived notion of contemporary art: it being "too intellectual", boring, too scientific, entirely concept-based, self-referential, rid of any classical skills, not living up to the masterpieces that we admire (realism, craftsmanship).

Some exhibitions left such a lasting impression on me that I can still tell you where a particular painting was hanging that I loved, or at least I could easily find it again if I went to the place once again. Art exhibitions aren't supposed to be a threat to you on some level, for fear of embarrassing yourself, not getting it, or whatever. I've found myself walking out of an exhibition with anger numerous times, because I hated what I saw. There is a lot of stuff going wrong in art today, but also a lo tof stuff that is mind-blowing and enjoyable.

Whichever way you want to put it, it is still a weakness to have such a predetermined view on contemporary art, just because you've seen a bunch of artworks that you happened to not relate to or hate.

>>3245169
I mentioned at the beginning that there are contemporary works that I like and I gave examples. I consider myself to be very open-minded and I have a pretty broad range of tastes. The "rocket scientist" thing just triggered me because I think it perfectly encapsulates the worst aspects of contemporary art. The sneering at people because they don't "get it". It's fucking art man, it's just a form of playing, you don't have to prove anything to anyone.

>>3245158
>Are you envious and lack skill just because you don't like pornographic art?
You know very well that you don't have to be "frustrated that you can't do a particular thing" in order to dislike it. I can hate porn art for what it is while I could theoretically make porn art myself. The two don't cancel each other out. If you bring up the old "it's just because you can't do it yourself" schtick, it's just a cheap ad hominem escape.

>>3245171
I get that the comparison was strange. But it's also a fact that to understand some works, you need a bit of background knowledge. Same as kids don't understand adult humor. There are art pieces that are sort of "elaborate jokes" and there are others that function on a very universal, visual level while they are still deeply routed in our day and age (paintings by Peter Doig for instance).

Contemporary art is a very broad fucking category and it contains everything, from hipster-shit to subtle nieche-art. Chris Cunninghams music videos are fucking high class visual art to me.

In another thread, there was quite a fitting quote from someone who said that people should at least give it a chance instead of saying "it's shit" beforehand.

>>3245063
>If I met any of you guys in real life and we'd be discussing art, I would just burst into laughter. It's like fucking cleaning ladies trying to talk about rocket science.
You're sound like absolutely disgusting pseud with enormous ego. If you so "intellectual", what are you doing here among plebs? As high-flying high IQ successful modern artist you supposed to have tons connections with art circles. Collectors, art critiques, other high IQ modern artists, rich people, media. Absolutely no need for you to even open 4chan for art related discussions in first place. Why are you here posting all day in all modern art related threads across the board? Where is all free time comes from? Why high IQ artist like you start insulting everyone after being cornered in discussion? And how can high IQ modern artist got banned on board for little girls? Really makes you think.

>>3245173
>If you bring up the old "it's just because you can't do it yourself" schtick, it's just a cheap ad hominem escape.
See-
>>3245063
>The contempt you little shitbrains have for modern art mostly comes from your enviousness and lack of skills.

Which is what >>3245158
was responding to, since you can't be bothered to read. He was turning his opponents idiotic argument against them, hard to grasp, I know.

>>3245063
>You laugh at me because I'm different.
>I laugh at you because you're all the same.

>>3245178
hello Nambo-Jambo
improve English much do.

If Nambo so good loli artist, >>3245035 why loli Nambo still in 4chan? why not sell loli pictures to rich pedos?

>"It's not loli or pedo, it's joy of the newborn!"

>>3245373
>why loli Nambo still in 4chan?
Dude, Atall doesn't post here. He's Japanese illustrator. He doesn't even know english and existence of /ic/. You can ask him in twitter. So what is your deal now? Why are you here? Where is all free time comes from?

>>3245530
oh really? strange how you keep reporting me for spam with that compilation i made of your shit works, N@mabo Jambo, I guess you do browse /ic/ ! you cheap loli ngmi cunt.

>>3245089
>There is absolutely nothing reasonable about art and that's brilliant. An artwork ideally has absolutely no function, no use, no aspect that serves a linear purpose – like, say, a tool.
So close and yet so far. The brilliant thing about art is, as you say, that it can't be reduced to craft, to the execution of known formulas, - it always builds on, subverts and transforms itself and opens up new horizons, horizons which can not be objectively judged, because we don't have the metrics for judging them. This does not, however, mean that they are subjective, that 'anything goes'.
To illustrate this, let's take music as the most abstract example of artistic work. Musicians have always been building upon the theory of their time, found niches in which harmonies which were supposed to be 'objectively wrong' could be fit into the fabric of a composition, establishing new conventions in the process. It is in this way that music 'evolved' out of its original limitations in a coherent way. This approach is the exact opposite of throwing the idea of artistic expression as the expression of the artist out of the window and rolling your head around on the keyboard. That's just a retreat out of individuality into uncontrolled chaos.

>>3245619
>This approach is the exact opposite of throwing the idea of artistic expression as the expression of the artist out of the window and rolling your head around on the keyboard.

I like that you've started out with the comparison of parallel developements in new music. But I don't get how that sentence is anywhere near "the opposite" of that. Can you rephrase what you mean?

I absolutely love composers like Conlon Nancarrow, György Ligeti and Erik Satie. Their music is way more based in our time as, say, the decadence and snobbishness of Mozart.

>>3245640
You can look at it like this: There are two 'forces' clashing with each other: The structure of the artistic tradition, and the individual, which takes them into itself, puts itself into relation to it (which is the same as saying that it re-compiles them - all understanding is at its core 're-phrasing', transformation of information). It sees patterns, which are implicit within that framework, but 'intellectually' rejected by traditionalists who think they have everything figured out, gives those patterns explicit expression. When its work is published it may still be rejected by some, but by the sheer force of its internal necessity it soon overwhelms those criticisms. The critiques are forced to admit that by their critique they have not invalidated the work, but their own understanding of art.
I believe you consider Mozart decadent and snobbish because you are disgusted by the clarity, by the necessity of what he does. This stems from the central assumption of modern art, which you share: The rejection of the very idea of necessity, of artistic objectivity.

The problem with this view is that the rejection of necessity has to claim that same necessity for itself to justify its existence. The impressionists started to get away from plasticity and the cold, dead illusion of three-dimensionality classical art clung to, Rodtschenko broke down art into pure color on canvas, Cezanne deconstructed the idea that compositions ought to occur in a rectangular format, and from there on out modern art spiraled further and further into itself, turning into a rejection of the very notion of 'principle'. Once you understand this, abstraction for the sake of abstraction reveals itself to be the same as particularization for the sake of particularization: A proclamation of the death of art itself. "Art can not tell us anything about the absolute or ourselves, all it does is evoke empty, irrational feelings which have no place in our rational world any more."

>>3245720
I need to clarify that I'm by no means a traditionalist. But if you do use photoshop and other software to create pictures, why would you end up being so obsessed with emulating "real paint"? This is a major problem in digital art: it's based on faking the looks of real paint, real structure. Instead, you could do so many other things. You have endless possibility to layer stuff. The digital layers can influence each other with numerous effects and you can endlessly layer things on top of each other. There are so many things that are possible in digital painting that are simply impossible in traditional media (and vice versa). Why doesn't anyone make some proper, groundbreaking use of that? All I ever see on here is digital artists ripping off ideas from old masters, trying to emulate certain colors with some digital brush kit, repeating things that have been around for ages. There is no innovation in concept art, only sorry nostalgia and an unhealthy self-obsession.

I don't see what you mean by "necessity" in art, especially in music by Mozart. I would say he is one of the first sell-out pop musicians. His premise (and also by advice from his father) was to create music that the most stupid, unmusical member in the audience can enjoy. It is clean, structured, polyphonic and complicated only to an extent where it doesn't overchallange the ear … But let's not get into music so much. Back to painting.

The dogmatic idea of some artists dealing with total abstraction after the WWII is tiresome, just like most dogmatic manifestos are restrictive and resentful. But despite any of these stubborn stances, you can still get something out of it with an open mind. Some people have massive issues with the fact that painting isn't only going to serve as a cool decoration going with your expensive leather couch. But it still can also be just that, which is the crazy thing about art. It's ambiguous.

>>3245733
>it's based on faking the looks of real paint, real structure
... and traditional art was originally intent on masking that structure, on faking the look of the things it was trying to mimic. Art has to emancipate itself from its presuppositions one step at a time.
Digital art is far more 'open' than any medium before it (I'd even go so far as to say that the fact that artists can change the qualities of the medium according to their vision is its central quality), it doesn't have any structural limitations to fall back on the way traditional art could. This is why, to begin with, digital artists *had* to start by limiting themselves in relying on tradition, and only then branch out into developing their own theories of how to do things in the new medium. The next generation of artist could then build on the knowledge they had accrued.

You only seem to see the limitations this approach brings with it, not understanding that artists need to balance the limitations of remaining within tradition with the limitations that come with going back to square one every time you find yourself in new circumstances. Digital art is breaking new ground all the time - in fact it's pretty astonishing how quickly we are going through different paradigms when you compare it to centuries of relative stability in the medieval period and modern art crawling in the mud for 50 years.

>>3245029

I admire the proud sculptors pedophiles that make detailed sculptures of little naked girls, it gives me those extra inches.

>>3245779
>Digital art is breaking new ground all the time
I don't see that in any of the things that are being admired here on /ic/. Most of the concept art that is around at the time has no improvement since the invention of matte painting an the beautiful, rich backgrounds of matte painters for films like Planet of the Apes and the first Star Wars movies. If anything, landscape concept art has become more kitsch while featuring exaggerated unnatural color palettes. The rest of /ic/ mostly concentrates on furry, shota, loli, porn art ...

>>3245850
You've been spending too much time on brooding over /ic/s board culture, man. The internet a huge hyperlink-network, always referring back to itself, branching off from the paradigms it itself created into all kinds of refreshing, meaningful art and integrating them back into itself.

We've closed the gap between stylization and realism in so many new ways, opened up so many possibilities for artistic expression that were previously invisible, paved the way for so many unique aesthetics. Even when you look at porn, we've come so far from the scripted, demeaning, pathetic crap you would have rented on vhs tapes and read in erotic novels 20 years ago. It's really baffling to me that you can't appreciate how amazing the history of digital art has been so far.

>>3246081

The vast majority of concept art produced today is downright pathetic compared to the work created by past generations. Illustrators were more skilled when you go back a few decades, too.

>>3246086
Aren't you the one stuck in traditional categories now?

A few decades back only a select few had the opportunity to get into the world of commercial illustration/animation/storytelling, and of course of those few, those who ended up becoming masters at their craft were very technically skilled, 'professionals' so to speak. But the art that was created back then, for the most part, lacked sincerity, soul, personality, 'drive'. It was art created in a commercial context for a commercial context.

The early internets 'artscape', by comparison, was amateurish, experimental, always already five steps ahead of itself. Sure we experienced a major drop in technical excellence, but that wasn't a high price to pay for the innovation we got out of it. And now we're regaining the 'quality' that was lost, and you complain about stagnation - but I'm fairly sure there will be another period of innovation to follow.

>>3246103
this >>3246086 was not me. But I agree, concept artists seemed to have been far more based and skilled, or bad concept artists nowadays hide behind fancy websites and twitter accounts that make themselves seem so very special and successful. You can make up stuff in you cv, too. Who is going to check if any of that is legit? The entire presentation culture on the web is an odd, uneven mix of a shitload of amateurs, who elevate themselves endlessly and a fleeting number of professionals. Once you are professional, you stop roaming around forums and stop interacting with your twitter and other bullshit so much.
The major advancements that you and >>3246081 talk about are nowhere to be found. And porn improving ... oh c'mon. Are there seriously some degenerates around here who call themselves "porn artists"? that's just paradoxical.

>>3246103
>But the art that was created back then, for the most part, lacked sincerity, soul, personality, 'drive'. It was art created in a commercial context for a commercial context.

No. Read "The End of Art" and other Arthur Danto’s books.

>>3246103
>But the art that was created back then, for the most part, lacked sincerity, soul, personality, 'drive'. It was art created in a commercial context for a commercial context.
You're aware that Shakespeare also worked in a commercial context, for the purpose of selling theater tickets, right? And that most of the revered works of the Renaissance are paintings of rich people and stock religious scenes, i.e., they don't show the personal outlook or passion of the artist at all? And that many of Bach's and Beethoven's works were commissioned by kings and churches for ceremonial purposes. Did all those works lack soul and personality and drive?

This disdain among artists for everything "commercial" is largely an invention of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a reaction to the democratization of education and culture and the development of technology allowing for the mass reproduction of art. The idea that the only legitimate art is one that expresses "individual passion" and is free of the demands of the market and of the wider culture is not a necessary and foregone conclusion. It had a beginning, and it could have an end too.

>>3245178
Is this tubgirl?

>>3239642
I don't care if this post is bait, whoever delivers this kind of talk deserves execution