/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

/ic/ isn't for fine art. ppl are literally mentally challenged here and get mad at anything that requires intelligence.

>>3282711
I think im figuring out through my own research. At least a rough approximation of how he did it

>>3282713
Rothko used a 'light hand'. he was going for extremely subtle effects so you'll prolly get only superficial approximations.

>>3282693
>>3282711
>>3282713
>>3282718
(You) are worse than crabs
literally kill yourself

I thought I read once Rothko used quite a few layers in his process. One painting could take months to make due to the oils drying time. It is said that putting on many layers will give the colour more depth (something with the way the light reacts irrc)

>>3282711
>requires intelligence
spongebob wearing an orange sweater

You get it through water thin stains and imprecise paint application. Rothko did hundreds of stains on a single canvas, all of them imprecise. He'd also go through and burn the paint with even more turpentine after he applied it to get some of the haziness around the edges and at the corners.

>>3282746
Yeah, many many many layers. He was even known to sprinkle raw pigment onto the surface of the painting between stain applications.

>>3282773
>>3282746
>>3282777
yeah thats what im getting too. A lot of turpentine to thin his paints and layers upon layers upon layers, with some specific touches/burns here and there. More like a stain than a paint like a couple of you were saying

>>3282711
>/ic/ isn't for fine art. ppl are literally mentally challenged here and get mad at anything that requires intelligence.
well put and sadly, very true.

>>3282800
that's too bad. I wish there was a casual spot like 4chan to shitpost about fine art and whatnot.

I'd search out an actual forum but that feels like so much of a commitment

>>3282817
the fact that any 14yr old with a bamboo board or even fucking tourists from /b/ can just come here and shitpost makes this place a complete mess.
anonymity has some upsides, but it needs a fucking filter. you would have to kind of apply to be allowed to post. and it would need different sections that are protected from shitposters in other sections e.g. anime waifu whores shitposting in fine art threads and so on.
i haven't found anything remotely acceptable as a forum. maybe it's just impossible.

solving technical problems with paint, color and experimentation, =/= solving concept representation with paint, color, and experimentation...

>>3282823
There is no reason why an art internet forum with a good moderator wouldn't work. There are already internet forums where you need to write an application to get in. I guess real artists already have enough artist friends in real life so they don't feel the need to talk about it online?

>>3282835
i discovered /ic/ and the thought of discussing fine art with people around the world was fascinating to me. the reality is very different from that expectation.
i have plenty of artist friends who have graduated like me. we all paint and we are all stepping up the ladder each year, getting scholarships, prizes, free studios and stuff. /ic/ would be very interesting and worthwhile to use, if it wasn't for the constant clashing of extremes, digital vs. fine art, dogma vs. dogma. this place is cancer, yet i still come here. to be fair, i've saved and discovered a lot of fine art works from these "inspiration threads", which was worth it.

>>3282846
>i've saved and discovered a lot of fine art works from these "inspiration threads", which was worth it

And you didn't discover these while you studied? I never saw anything obscure in these threads.

>>3282835
those who enjoy fine art without delusions tend to be smart/ knowledgeable enough to have rich lives and not be desperate enough for online discussion with strangers. why talk impersonally with nobodies when you can talk to real artists in person, make actual connections with meaningful topics.

then again, if you live in a shitty area your local scene will likely just be old retired people drawing landscapes and flowers.

I really enjoy looking at these pieces and realizing how there's colors and patterns that are pleasing to the eye. They make us feel stable, or happy, or unsettled, and in the end that's what you want with your art: to evoke emotion.

What upsets me is when the artist just wants to experiment with our senses and people start going apeshit about reflecting the soul of the post-modern laborer in the capitalism suburbia buzzword buzzword.

>>3282693
He'a drybushing over a base layer of orange you stupid fucking faggot

>>3282693
Okay so like I GET it, I get what the artist is doing, I get that art fundamentals and shit are still applied to abstract and expressionist art.

I just still think that, as a visual piece of media, it's still shit.

Some Ithink have nice design appeal even though they're simple and someone could easily replicate it, but stuff like in OP looks more like an artist testing out new paint than it does making a serious piece to have pride in.

I understand the importance of these paintings in history. We wouldn't have the same understanding of how value or color can affect the mood of a piece without the artists who made works like this. It's also really fun to just experiment and make bullshit like this, but at the end of the day it's still just a painting of two colors, maybe a really shitty sunset if you squint.

>>328269
>like wow his orange isn't JUST orange
>like wow there's these slight variations
>like wow he truly was a master

I'm so tired of hearing his 'color variations' being brought up by pseuds im damage control mode over and over again.

He's using a dry brush over a base layer you stupid fucking faggot. Holy shit have you really never used paint before in your life? You'd get the same "effect" from painting a wall in your bathroom without even thinking about it.

>>3283025
ya really gotta see it in person desu

>>3283026
>>3283025
You first need to learn how fine art works and how to actually look at paintings before you can make any meaningful judgement about them. Otherwise it's the equivalent of an ignorant teenager bashing Socrates for being a 'hipster' or other ignorant shit kids say.

>>3283035
>You need to be a cook to say you don't like certain food
>You need to be a programmer to complain about bad graphics/framerate/bugs
>You need to be a stylist to complain when some amateur bitch fucks your hair up

Imagine being this much of a nigger.

>>3283035
Artists aren't particularly intelligent people with some kind of grand insight or philosophy. Not even a little. The sooner you liberate your head from your own asshole maybe you'll come to realize that. Or you can continue to be overwhelmed and impressed by a big orange canvas while you breathe through your mouth like an awe-struck retard in the middle of a sparsely populated tax payer funded museum. It makes no difference either way.

>>3283039
you haven't understood the point being made but you still felt the need to post a whole bunch of bullshit and insults.

if you can't even see the content then your critique is nothing but an expression of your ignorance. it isn't about being an expert to validate opinion. it's about actually engaging in the activity.

>apples suck. i don't like apples.
>>have you ever had an apple?
>no.
>>are you OK bro?

>>3283045
>Artists aren't particularly intelligent
intelligent about what? or are you one of those IQ people?

>>3282874
>>3282846

this is very true, and i tend to stick to in person communication, but i do like discussing art/design in general, from amateur to pro, so i come here too if im just dickin around on the computer or something

Ive also found that it helps expand my discussion/critique vocabulary quite a bit.

>>3283025
it's really something you need to see in person. I was kind of the same way about art like this, would always prefer like..big fancy renaissance style pieces over contemporary works. Seeing these IRL is really interesting because often times they're a lot bigger than you think they are, and the colors are far more nuanced than you can normally see in a photo, plus a lot of the time there's variance in texture throughout the piece that adds more depth and tangibility to the work.

>>3283026
that's not even true lol. He thinned his paints with turpentine and applied multiple layers with different pressures throughout his strokes. post your bathroom walls if youre so good

>>3283039
>>3283045
weak bait, collectively 0/10

>>3283047
nice strawman. Using your shitty apple analogy it would be more like
>I've eaten apples and I don't like them
>Ugh so ignorant doesn't even know how to eat apples

But sure go ahead, please continue thinking this is bait or falseflag about it, I'm sure you enjoy feeling superior because you enjoy an orange square on a wall.

>>3283085
people can like or dislike things for different reasons, but it's better to have an actual critique instead of "waah i don't GET it"

>>3283027
>>3283035
>>3283079
So I live near the clyfford still museum in Denver and have visited it. I still have these feelings. I think the pieces are shit. I get it, I get the work and the process that goes into it, but in my opinion, as something to visibly look at, it's shit.

Read my post better. I can understand something, why it's important, why people enjoy it, while still personally finding it to be shit.

I read ever damn placard in the museum and looked at every piece for several minutes at different angles and distances. It's just lame to me.

This type of art, if you aren't into it you probably won't ever be into it in my opinion. I watched my weeaboo "literally cannot fucking draw" classmate geek the fuck out over the pieces in the museum but I still think visually they're boring.

I like the beginning part of the museum better where it shows his earlier work like portraits and landscapes, even the ones that were somewhat expressionist but still had some visibly figures or landscapes.

The rest is crap.

It has nothing to do with intelligence, education, or understanding of principles of art. It's my opinion as someone who goes to museums to find things I think are cool to look at. I don't enjoy them and i'm allowed to have my own opinion on what I find enjoyable to view.

>>3283130
You're just ignorant, you think you get it but you don't. I feel sorry for you.

>>3283130
please post some art that /you/ enjoy, then. im curious about your taste

>>3283130
>I get the work and the process that goes into it
yeah, i doubt that on both counts.

>looked at every piece for several minutes
>at different angles and distances.
i get the impression you don't know much about modern painting or the ideas behind it. so a Rothko is going to be too advanced for you. no wonder you can't enjoy it even at superficial levels. you prolly want to stick to pre impressionism as it mostly about manchildren painting their toy armies and women-obsessed mythology.

This fucking arguing about modern/contemporary art will never be solved and will continue to see the same two sides argue with each other without any solution or understanding.

pretentious circle jerks stroking each other on how superior their tastes as they laugh at whatever side saying they "don't get it" or "too young to understand".
Same old shit.

>>3283039
Did you even read what they said?

>You first need to learn how fine art works and how to actually look at paintings

They didn't say that you need to be a painter, someone who creates, you just need a good understanding of it to

>make any meaningful judgement about them

>I don't like
Alone is not a meaningful judgement. You need to explain why. You also need to show an understanding of what you judge.

>You need to be a cook to say you don't like certain food

So the proper job here would be a food critic. No one is forbidding you from saying you don't like some food but if you eat nothing but fast food all day I doubt anyone will trust your opinion on haute cuisine.

>>3283197
>Not enjoying orange squares is the equivalent of only eating fast food
Clearly your head is too far up your ass to understand why it's frustrating for people who actually try to see themselves defeated by le2deep4u abstract art.

There's a purpose to these paintings. They are beautiful, but they tingle our brain because we like seeing colors and shapes, and for fellow artists there's the extra incentive of watching their method and how they blended/rendered them, but that's it. There's hard evidence for this. You're not some kind of ascended meta-human because you jerk off to them. I bet half the artists who paint these hate their audience.

>>3283210
>defeated by le2deep4u abstract art.
self-defeating prophecy perhaps? especially if you feel so cornered as to use the '2deep4u' meme.

>>3283210
>watching their method and how they blended/rendered them
someone taking a squeegee to canvas isn't the same kind of abstract as a Rothko or other modern art. all you're doing is looking for an excuse to defend your stubbornness to learn. or just a troll.

>>3283210
>not enjoying

You are not reading again.

You are allowed to not enjoy abstract art. It's just that your judgement is not meaningful until you have a good amount of understanding of art. You need to be able to articulate yourself.

>>3283210
why do you think that people in this thread are "jerking off" to these paintings it's just difficult to understand your "i don't like it because i don't like it" stance

if your pic related is art that you like, though, then i think i see where the problem is

>>3282693
>A: I don't like it.
>B: You don't like it because you don't understand art history
>A: I have taken art history.
>B: Then you haven't seen it in person.
>A: I have seen it in person.
>B: Then you're just ignorant.

Literally every modern/contemporary art thread. Apparently, all modern/contemporary art is infallible and cannot be critiqued because they are perfect in every way possible. I doubt most people defending the modern/contemporary art pieces have even seen them in real life either. They feel whatever they like has to be liked by everyone, and everyone who doesn't like what they like is wrong. That is such a childish perspective. Everyone approach the world from their experience and perspective and are entitled to their opinions.

What the people defending modern/contemporary art is basically saying is unless you have to same set of experiences and perspective as they do, then you're not allowed to dislike modern/contemporary art.

>>3283262
see, you're not representing the facts faithfully. The usual tard that doesn't like modern art and is extremely vocal about his opinions, doesn't actually know anything about the subject, but acts on his own false arrogance to dismiss the entire thing.

here's how easy it is:
>science is some kind of ascended meta-human garbage that poser intellectuals jerk off to. now i'm going to refuse learning anything about the subject i just criticized and act like a victim when people tell me i'm wrong and being an asshat.

these people would be a waste of time if they were not cancerous to those around them.

The only problem I have with this type of art is that if you master the fundamentals you can create a rembrandt AND you can create abstract orange squares.
If you can only create orange squares but cannot even attempt a rembrandt then you obviously don't have any grasp of the fundamentals on a practical level and should command no respect.
This is why I can look at picasso and van gogh and appreciate their abstract works. They are coming from a place of knowledge and discipline.

>>3283274

>see, you're not representing the facts faithfully. The usual tard that doesn't like modern art and is extremely vocal about his opinions, doesn't actually know anything about the subject, but acts on his own false arrogance to dismiss the entire thing.

That's still his own opinion. There is nothing objectively perfect that ties all pieces of modern/contemporary art just because they are called "modern art" or "contemporary art". If the properties of paint or the act of painting does not appeal to someone, then it doesn't appeal to them. No amount of art history and visiting modern/contemporary art museums will change their minds.

I have seen good arguments against modern/contemporary art. Most people defending modern/contemporary art seem to ignore them and go after the idiots because they can't resist the bait.

>>3283290
>That's still his own opinion.

So you are not allowed to criticise opinions?

>>3283299

>So you are not allowed to criticise opinions?

Nope, you can criticize opinions. But that doesn't mean your criticism is good. For example, this criticism is not good:

>A: I don't like apples.
>B: I don't like that you don't like apples, because I do. So you're intellectually inferior.

That is obviously a bad criticism.

>>3283305
You can't compare liking an apple to liking art though.

>>3283315

>You can't compare liking an apple to liking art though.

I am giving an example of a bad criticism, not an example of a criticism involving art.

>>3283318
Well I don't know if you can even criticize something so directly linked to your genetics as liking a fruit. It's like liking a certain color.

>>3283274
i agree with you completely, but i've given up reasoning with >>3283290 and the likes. they are just plain stubborn motherfuckers, there's nothing more to it. philistine, knows-it-all little shits.

>>3283045
>Artists aren't particularly intelligent people with some kind of grand insight or philosophy. Not even a little.
speak for yourself, you bleeding moron. your condescending compartmentalization is exactly the problem with you smug, lazy shitheads.

>>3282866
>And you didn't discover these while you studied? I never saw anything obscure in these threads.
dude, there are so many fucking painters. literally every european city has a shitload of famous painters from all centuries.
pic related, one artist that I discovered in an /ic/ thread.

>>3283079
>Ive also found that it helps expand my discussion/critique vocabulary quite a bit.
same with me. discussing art in english is a completely different thing. english isn't my first language. it helps a lot to see what kind of vocabulary people use.

>>3283344

This is the epitome of the person who defends modern/contemporary art when he runs out of arguments and can no longer use the "you don't understand art history" and "you haven't seen it in real life" meme.

That was the whole point of this post all along: >>3283262 Which was that some people just can't handle differing opinions and ultimately resorts to name calling when they run out of arguments.

>>3283045
Creativity and success are both correlated to intelligence.

>>3283330
>Well I don't know if you can even criticize something so directly linked to your genetics as liking a fruit. It's like liking a certain color.

That only furthers my point of it being a bad criticism. Even so, people can be conditioned to enjoy the taste of apple and it doesn't have to be about genetics.

>>3283367
This, if you want to laugh at more of these retards check out modern artists on youtube. They make kindergarten grade paint splashes on a canvas and embellish the process with weighted words like "flay that orange with some yellow". Meanwhile the real masters like Vilppu barely say shit because the process of feeling the form is inherently amazing.

Delusional retards stuck up their own ass neck deep in the sunk cost fallacy at this point.

>>3283367
>some people just can't handle differing opinions
right back at you, faggot.
how about you start accepting the possibility that people can actually get into contemporary art? has that ever crossed you mind?

>"oh i hate Stockhausen, is such a shit music, literally just noise!"
>"no it's not. as a matter of fact i can get into it. makes me think of xy and z."
>"that's bullshit, you are bullshit! Stockhausen is bullshit, there's no xy or z in it, you are pretending to like it, because reasons! and I've seen some conspiracy video and heard it's money laundering and yada yada yada!"

>>3283376
>They make kindergarten grade paint splashes
and I bet this is in fact all you've ever seen of it and now you like to imagine that you understand it. lmao. case closed.

>>3283374
>That only furthers my point of it being a bad criticism

How so?

>>3283378
>right back at you, faggot. how about you start accepting the possibility that people can actually get into contemporary art? has that ever crossed you mind?

I accept the possibility that some people like modern/contemporary art. Case in point, you. Do you accept the opinion of those who don't like modern/contemporary art?

If this is your post: >>3283344

Then I will take your answer as no.

>>3283367
>>3283385
You know posting the alt-right frog doesn't work in your favor during an argument. Surprised you haven't taken out the triple parenthesis yet.

>>3283384

Your side-tracking the conversation. Do I have to quote what you wrote again?

>Well I don't know if you can even criticize something so directly linked to your genetics as liking a fruit.

Let me analyze your own sentence. You're saying it is uncertain whether a critique is applicable to a phenomenon controlled by genetic predisposition, which implies it is uncertain whether the criticism is applicable, which implies the criticism may be bad.

>>3283385
>I accept the possibility that some people like modern/contemporary art. Case in point, you. Do you accept the opinion of those who don't like modern/contemporary art?
in fact i do. i hate about 60 to 70% of contemporary art myself. i've been occupying myself with contemporary art for the past eight years constantly, i've seen exhibitions in all major european cities, historical and contemporary art.

but the reasons most people on /ic/ bring forward as to why "everybody should hate" the art that is produced nowadays has nothing to do with personal opinion and everything to do with a condescending, ignorant stance. trying to impose their taste on others or trying to elevate the stuff they do - illustration, porn art, vidya or concept art - because they feel left out, not being in "fine art", not getting the same audience or the same exposure.

>>3282693
>>3282711
>>3282800

>>3283134
Ilol okay
>>3283144
I don't have specific favourites but 1800 french paintings, I enjoyed this exhibit a lot at the denver art museum if it'll link right to it https://denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/glitterati

Growing up my mom had these paintings in a similar style around the house of these terrifying looking children so I think I have some weird nostalgic feeling because of those.

I've never been someone to like a specific artist, just specific pieces.

Monet is the first artist I remember learning about in 2nd grade along with Van Gogh and other obvious famous artists.

>>3283187
Look dude, I don't think that understanding the ideas behind something makes that something good.

Kingdom hearts you can understand the ideas behind but it's still a fucked up mess of a storyline.

I like graphic work, stuff derived from Andy Warhol but not Warhol himself, I like jackson pollock a lot.

But I think work like Rothko and Still are just boring to look at.

You can explain the shit behind it all you want and claim superiority but at the end of the day it's still boring to look at.

All that said, I'm allowed my opinion and you're all allowed to think that the work is the epitome of modern art just because you know the process behind it.

You can spend years polishing a turd but at the end of the day it's still a turd.

>>3283196
>"don't get it"
have you ever struggled to understand a joke and had to ask what it means? it's a very particular sort of frustration, if you fail to understand something. i think that is the experience that a lot of contemporary art haters have made.

>"too young to understand"
would you say that people and children of all ages are capable of understanding art on the same level? does this go for art, or also for literature, movies, jokes, music? is art weak when it requires background knowledge?

i'm not trying to mock you. it just sounds so completely vague, the way you argue.

Man this is why shit like modern "art" is able to exist nowadays, because people are always trying to act deep and force meaning to things that don't have any in the first place. Not only that, but the artwork itself sometimes stops being the center of discussion, and you just get a cesspool of circlejerking "deepthinkers" and "experts" vomitting nonsense after nonsense that makes them feel smart and special.

>but you have to see it IRL anon, the colors are so nuanced it's genius
If the only greatness of it resides in a shitty nuance of colors then it's trash.
>but anon it's super imposing
No shit. Anything taller than you, framed and made of bright colors is gonna feel imposing, like any yellow wall painted by a minimum wage worker. It's a concept that's been used and overused forever, not new.
>h-he used a special stroke here! This stroke is different from all the other strokes in the world!
Fuck you.

Modern art can sometimes be very creative and beautiful, shit like this only makes people roll their eyes.

>inb4 too dumb to understand modern art deepness

>>3283196
>>3283262
Pretty much this.

>>3283397
>I don't have specific favourites but 1800 french paintings, I enjoyed this exhibit a lot at the denver art museum if it'll link right to it https://denverartmuseum.org/exhibitions/glitterati
you know, it would be easy to shit on you for liking that exhibition. just as easy as it is to shit on people who apparently enjoy contemporary art for personal reasons. you can be salty and insulting about any fucking subject. it boils down to "your taste against mine!"

>>3283399
first of all, "modern art" is not the same as "contemporary art". try wikipedia, because your blatant ignorance is showing.

>>3283399
>but you have to see it IRL anon, the colors are so nuanced it's genius

i've once met a guy who said he doesn't go to live concerts, because "it just sounds the same to me like hearing an mp3". if you perception is this crippled …. fuck, i wouldn't like to be in your skin. well, at least you save a lot of money.

>>3283400
>Pretty much this.
too lazy to contribute with your own thoughts?

>>3283399
>but you have to see it IRL anon, the colors are so nuanced it's genius
i've once met a guy who said he doesn't go to live concerts, because "it just sounds the same to me like hearing an mp3". if your perception is this crippled …. fuck, i wouldn't trade with you. well, at least you save a lot of money.

>>3283409
>comparing visual arts with music
>comparing your 128kbps average joe reproduction when visual arts have literally dozens of millions of collors and 4K resolution as standard, with modifiable color temperature and international standards of color reproduction.
Stop making retarded assumptions, stick to the field you actually have experience with.

>>3283397

>Look dude, I don't think that understanding the ideas behind something makes that something good.
there are VISUAL concepts that enable you to SEE MORE CONTENT. you literally are not seeing the same paintings because of ignorance.

>All that said, I'm allowed my opinion
i don't care about your opinion. this is very straightforward: ignorant people dismissing things they demonstrably know nothing about in public. if people call them out on it, guess what? that's an equal opinion, too. here's a novel thought: if people don't know jack shit about a subject then they should actually entertain the idea of spending time learning and asking questions rather than picking fights on the premise of defending their ignorance. like, why do we need to hear joe moron's opinion on quantum physics? i don't get it.

>>3283413
if you were right, there would literally be no more museums, zero, none. all just digital archives. way too expensive to host real art pieces. nobody would go to museums.
thanks for proving my point.

>>3283397
>But I think work like Rothko and Still are just boring to look at.
so, tell me, anon. is your opinion the measure of all things? is that what you want to say?
because you can explain to me how appealing and fantastic Vilppu is and I will still find his anatomy crap boring and soulless as fuck.

>your opinion against mine.
well, shit. isn't that the core of this whole fucking useless debate??

>>3283397
>You can spend years polishing a turd but at the end of the day it's still a turd.
same goes for illustration.

>>3283413
>Stop making retarded assumptions, stick to the field you actually have experience with.
i'm a multi-instrumentalist. how about you stop making assumptions?

>>3283403
>let me show this guy on the internet my infinite and superior amount of knowledge by pointing out that modern and contemporary are two different words, then i'll point him to wikipedia, that'll show him!
literally pathetic.

>>3283409
>>3283415
>comparing seeing imposing sculpture masterpieces to a piece of yellow wallpaper.
are your lives so meaningless that you have to try so hard to add to it? this is fucking ridiculous.

>>3283414
Visual concepts such as...?

How about instead of going "HURR DURR YOU'RE IGNANT" you just, yknow, explain it and prove you understand it too instead of just stroking your own dick thinking you're smart for liking an ugly painting?

>>3283401
>your taste against mine
That's literally what I've been saying you retard. It has nothing to do with knowledge, it's what I enjoy seeing and looking at. I don't "get" the visual appeal despite making an effort to learn about it. I just don't see the worth in enjoying it today aside from a historical context.

In a historical context, damn fascinating for what it did for the art world, but outside of that? Ugly skilless paintings. Don't confuse knowledge with skill

>>3283414
i generally agree, although i hate kandinsky, lmao. but hey, i'm on your side here. arguing with /ic/ fags is pretty much as infuriating as this (i see the same quality of ignorance in Ms Wright and /ic/ fags)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XrOscFu1y8

>>3283426
>literally pathetic.
no u.

>are your lives so meaningless that you have to try so hard to add to it? this is fucking ridiculous.
lame, useless insults. not refuting anything at this point. try again.

>>3283428
agreed. i just used him for example as i'd rather limit the posting of good artwork here for obvious reasons.

>>3283426
If you don't even know the difference between something as basic as modern and contemporary art then that's a good clue that you have no idea what you are talking about.

it looks like nothing

>>3283429
>not refuting anything
you can't read then. try again.

>>3283427
no, it's not the same. this one contemporary art hating faggot on /ic/ has admitted to shitpost drunk on several occasions. he is behind the "modern art was a mistake" threads. i lured that same kid into a cryptochat, pretending to side with him and hate all of contemporary art. i asked him if he went to see exhibitions and he said
>"no, can't be bothered".
that IS the fucking definition of ignorance. there is a kid hating on Pollock for pleb-tier reasons, deriving that ALL of contemporary art is a huge scam, shallow, pretentious, cocky bullshit. and guess what his profession is (was!) - a failed indie game designer. he spent several years on a failing project. and he used this experience to say in one of the threads that
>"it is all a game of pretense. i know because i've been there!"

this is not only ignorance, it is absolute infatuation.

>pic related is one of the pics he made for one of his "modern art was a mistake" threads
and this is him also : >>3282800
he's polish, lives in UK now. and he traces wolves in shitty lineart.

>>3283290
>>3283367
there's yet to be a "good argument against modern/contemporary art" posted in this thread other than "i don't like it so it's bad", though

>>3283397
>"it's boring to look at"

i could say the same about the art you linked to, honestly. It just doesnt interest me, but i can understand and recognize the themes behind it and *why* others like it

>>3283399
t. brainlet who thinks "seeing" art is the same as "looking" at art.

>all of those middle criticisms im not gonna retype
It's weird to believe you've never had an experience with a certain piece or style, have never thought any more about a piece apart from whats shown as the main subject

all of those things you mentioned are all part of viewing the piece and they all contribute to the overall impact of the art. the trouble then is that it's almost impossible to explain unless you have experienced it yourself

I'm sorry that you've yet to view a piece of art that really gets to you

>>3283433
i'm officially done with you at this point. go back anytime to read responses to your childish whining and think of better answers.

>>3283436
>t. brainlet who thinks "seeing" art is the same as "looking" at art.
there are people on /ic/ who unironically think that looking at paintings in a Google search as JPEGs on their computer is the same as looking at it in a museum.

>>3283441
if you can see the work then what else is there? just like a book right? no need to have HD text. clearly this is correct because you can't see anything wrong!

>Artists aren't particularly intelligent people

>>3283436
>I'm sorry that you've yet to view a piece of art that really gets to you
A lot of things got to me, even some old paintings of my own city exposed in my shitty local museum, things that nobody knows about or isn't popular at all. I was exposed to a lot of modern art, there are a few exceptions, but it's all the same shit otherwise.

Same as you, I'm sorry a couple of color nuances due to water and a couple of strokes can move and make you feel special. you must be fucking ecstatic in a kindergarten while the kids are painting.

>>3283447
screens deteriorate over time
http://www.ledshift.com/Livespan.html
screens have a limited color fidality

a digital picture of a painting is simplified at least three times:
1) it's light, hitting the sensor of a camera = (one possible angle; colors reduced, warped and changed according to the camera equipment, lense distortion, blurr, color aberation)
2) it's compressed. most images you find in typical search engines are JPEG – the resolution is scaled down, colors are yet again reduced and simplified, a compression is generalizing certain areas and flatening similar colors together as one.
3) you look at the JPEG through your computer screen. unless you are using a high-end calibrated photographer computer screen with best possible color fidality, you are again simplifying and distorting the image with using the final medium to look at the picture.

– a computer screen has a grid of pixels. the pixels are typically backlit.
– a painting is made of several layers, consisting of primer, paint medium, pigment. it is lit up either by daylight or professional electric light in museums. light falling on a surface at an angle.
there a re

Are you still saying it is the same experience as going to a museum, seeing a painting on the spot?

>>3283457
it's those nuances that make the artwork 'fine'. it's the appreciation of fine details that enable this very fucking fail discussion to take place between extremely nuance-engineered machines.

>>3283457
> I'm sorry a couple of color nuances due to water and a couple of strokes can move and make you feel special

hmm yes nice strawman, it's more complex than that and im sorry you don't understand things that make you think

i drew a city skyline once when i was in middle school art you want me to post it? might be moving for you

>>3283462
let me add
4) digital photographs of paintings are typically edited to increase color contrast, because most scaled down JPEGs will look like shit.

Francis Bacon famously collected prints of the Velazquez painting of the pope, because literally every print he could find delivered a different impression of the painting. open the search and see for yourself, every - single - photo of this painting has different lighting, contrast and colors!

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Velazquez+pope&bext=msl&atb=v94-3&iax=images&ia=images

>>3283447
>just like a book right? no need to have HD text.
plain awful comparison. you know that second hand books still sell, do you? because it doesn't fucking matter if the page is yellowish or fresh from the press, the text stays the same.

fuck these pretentious retards

>>3283462
>there a re
forgot what sentence i was trying to make. but another reason to go see a painting original is because you can see it from any distance and angle. sterescopic vision, different reflections, valleys, ridges …


>>3283476
>fuck these pretentious retards
here we go again
i didn't expect any less

>>3283476
>fuck these pretentious retards
because you lost?

>>3283466
>>3283467
Okay, explain it please, explain how it moves you. Explain to me what emotions instantly come up and make your heart beat faster and what stroke, explain what pops up in your head when you see each of these "very fine" strokes that you supposedly don't see in any other artwork. Explain their meaning to me please, I'm just an ignorant peasant.

>>3283490
>Okay, explain it please, explain how it moves you. Explain to me what emotions instantly come up and make your heart beat faster and what stroke, explain what pops up in your head when you see each of these "very fine" strokes that you supposedly don't see in any other artwork. Explain their meaning to me please, I'm just an ignorant peasant.
baiting for a "my feels!" explanation. what's the use? nobody can make you enjoy something. it's you call. if you hate it, congrats, you hate it! fuck it. who gives a flying fuck? you refuse to see why there's a difference between looking at pixels on your shitty, blueish computer screen and looking at a canvas.

you /ic/ digital illustratiors are completely used to staring at pixels for hours and hours. you've grown fond of producing and viewing art this way.

>>3283485
>>3283490

>>3283495
kind of a lame response really. don't let them pull you down on their level, with no arguments and only cheap insults.

>>3283436

>there's yet to be a "good argument against modern/contemporary art" posted in this thread other than "i don't like it so it's bad", though

You're saying "i don't like it so it's bad" is a good argument against modern/contemporary art? Here are the arguments I believe is good against modern/contemporary art:

It is a physical barrier of the medium in modern/contemporary art that someone has to travel to a museum and read about art history, involving time and money, before even being able to like or dislike it.

The nature of the argument that an understanding of art history is necessary to like a modern/contemporary art is flawed, as I am sure people without knowledge of art history can like modern/contemporary art.

The argument that you can appreciate modern/contemporary art by seeing it in real life can be made for all fine art. Even so, some digital reproductions represent the modern art pieces enough to grant the viewer the idea, but maybe not the complete idea. If that incomplete idea cannot sustain on its own, than that is a downside because it leads people into pretenses of what a piece of modern/contemporary art is when viewed from an inappropriate medium. This is more applicable in modern/contemporary art than traditional art since traditional art has objective elements, such as direct narratives that does not rely purely on paint quality or the act of painting.

Modern/contemporary art has no objectively measurable quality. If you can't tell whether an abstract expressionist piece was done by a famous abstract painter or a chimpanzee, then that is a downside of modern/contemporary art because the art is now attached to fame and name and does not stand on its own. If a fallen glove is mistaken for modern/contemporart art, then that is a downside of it as well because it tells us that modern/contemporary art cannot be distinguished from everyday objects.

this guy is gonna be big this year

>>3283505
forgot pic

>>3283493
that's a beautiful high altitude backflip followed by a turnaround and super hero landing dodge. Holy shit.

you truly can't even give one reason? damn, I almost feel bad for you. what's funny is that the authors of these works must be laughing at all the people overthinking their shitstains, they're probably the best placed people to know that modern art is meaningless.

>>3283507
also this guy
Vitas Icyfaggot

>>3283507
no

>>3283503
>can't tell whether an abstract expressionist piece was done by a famous abstract painter or a chimpanzee
this is only something a person who hasn't studied a lot of paintings would say. it only takes a short number of years of experience to know what to look for. if you don't know how to read then randomly generated text will be indecipherable from Shakespeare. when you learn grammar you can pick out words instantly from the noise.

>>3283509
>must be laughing at all the people overthinking their shitstains
>they're probably the best placed people to know that modern art is meaningless.
nice projection you got there. anything to back that up?

>>3283507
>>3283510
or this guy
Endshi Emmy

>>3283509

here's another literate and educated expert on the subject

>>3283507
>>3283510
>>3283511
>>3283515

he just release a new one 2 hrs ago. Paris is going crazy over this goy

>>3283512
>this is only something a person who hasn't studied a lot of paintings would say. it only takes a short number of years of experience to know what to look for.

Oh now people have to study a lot of paintings, further adding to the physical barrier. The chimpanzee abstract paintings has fooled abstract art critics, I'm sure they have studied many paintings.

>if you don't know how to read then randomly generated text will be indecipherable from Shakespeare. when you learn grammar you can pick out words instantly from the noise.

You cannot compare literature involving grammar, structure, narratives, to a few strokes of color on a canvas. It is easier for a chimpanzee to reproduce the works of an abstract artist than shakespeare's plays.

>>3283522
i urge you to send your fantastic, digital contemporary modern art to art galleries. see if they pick up on it.
if they do, you have successfully proven your point. it would show that "even you could make it" without any effort. do it. i mean it, do it! and come back with results.

>>3283523
>you're wrong because i have to study to know things
>you can't do that thing where those artists in those movements i don't understand did that those exact things.

k.

>>3283527
Can you rephrase your words to make a coherent argument directly at something I wrote? Or should I assume you're out of arguments? Thank you, let's keep this civilized.

>>3283490
Like i've said before, it's all those little bits and pieces that make a work like this unique. It's something that you can look at at a glance and it looks nice, as just fields of color; or you can stop, focus on it, and think about it and it's equally as rewarding to see that not one square inch of the painting is exactly the same as any other square inch. There's texture, there's varying shades and hues throughout, there's little artist touches like the turpentine burns and how nothing is uniform through the edges, and how each stroke takes it's place on the canvas. when you look at the whole thing and really look at it, think about it, you can almost see/feel the whole thing being made right in front of you.

>>3283514
nope I don't, not a single one.

>>3283530
This is literally, LITERALLY, word for word every explanation any of these people give to explain any of these modern wallpapers, honestly to the point of feeling it's a pasta troll. the wallpaper in my room also has all of that, I guess it's true "fine" art as well. oh well.

And now I'm also out of this shit. I can honestly say that people that consider the scribbles of another person at high regards freak me the fuck out. It's fanatic level of bullshit.

People who openly dismiss painters like Rothko are incapable of sitting still for more than ten seconds to look at something. Rothko takes time, you have to slow down to get his work. Just glancing a few seconds at a Rothko will show you literally nothing. You get in close to a Rothko, as close as you can, you fix your eyes on a single spot, and you just stare. Let the color fill your eyes until it becomes your entire field of vision. Then you'll start to see all the variations of color in the painting, you'll see that spot is not one color, but hundreds of colors, and your eye will start picking up on each one individually and the surface will explode in depth, receding and projecting towards you as each new color is picked up.

>>3283534
>wall paper
>not one square inch is the same as any other inch
Are you actually fucking retarded? Wallpaper is specifically made to be repeat itself exactly. It's fucking patterned for a reason, you actual retard.

>>3283534
>nope I don't, not a single one.
thought so

>>3283534
sounds like you ran out of shitty arguments. pretty much all you've brought forward has been refuted, except for the agreed on "your taste against mine", and that was a conclusion by someone else.

>>3283536
i've seen Rothko in the Tate Modern and it didn't strike me that much particularly to be honest. but i really think that the reason people don't even have the patience to give it a chance is this -->
>>3283493
>you /ic/ digital illustratiors are completely used to staring at pixels for hours and hours. you've grown fond of producing and viewing art this way.

>>3283546
The Seagram Murals?

>>3283548
that one, yes. the rooms were darkened, lights at around 50% or less. it was a good experience, but it just didn't strike me that much. i'm leaning more towards figurative painting.

>>3283534
>This is literally, LITERALLY, word for word every explanation any of these people give to explain any of these modern wallpapers, honestly to the point of feeling it's a pasta troll.

okay so you just don't "get it" then, is the only explanation i can figure as to why you've apparently been told multiple times WHY these pieces are liked and enjoyed so much, but you're not capable of understanding it. and that's okay. Different strokes for different folks (no pun intended).

>inb4 oh so literally "le2deep4u!!" meme

it's not a meme if it is, by all indications, true

here, i tried my hand at a digital representation of the piece so maybe you could appreciate this one better

>>3283550
Yeah, Rothko insisted the lighting be kept as low as possible. I love Rothko, he's one of my favorite painters. But all my favorite painters are the kind you have to slow way way down to appreciate.

>>3283561
i like how extreme he is with letting the color be color alone and nothing else.
it's nice to see that there are people with sense browsing /ic/ occasionally.

>>3283561
>all my favorite painters are the kind you have to slow way way down to appreciate.

same honestly. Can get the same viewing time from 2-3 of these pieces as you can like 10 of another artist, and it always feels like you really /know/ the piece better

used to hate on this kind of stuff "it's so simple a child could do it" but im a huge fan of it now. big inspiration

This type of art is like a person being angry that they were born too late to climb everest or land on the moon so they make an expedition to explore the dirt in their back garden.

>>3283596
i like your metaphor, but i completely disagree

>>3283564
Rothko wasn't necessarily about color as color. His works are nonobjective, but not in the same sense as other painters are nonobjective. He was depicting states of being. He gave a famous talk once in which he said, "The tragedy of the image is always on my mind." At another time he said, "I am interested in expressing basic human emotions. Tragedy, ecstasy, doom, and so on."

>>3283565
I also used to hate this kind of stuff. When I first entered college I was majoring in illustration, then I moved to animation, before settling on fine arts. My move to fine arts was predicated upon by being introduced to the late work of Philip Guston. When I started painting and understanding how that material works, and understanding Guston's work I looked around at all these other painters I used to not like and saw them just for their technical mastery, which made me think about why they used their specific techniques instead of other ones, which got me to understand their work. And with that understanding came the resonance their work has with me.

>>3283647
>Rothko
damn, I surely missed a lot of his concepts. I'll be reading up on Rothko, thanks for the push.
Peter Doig interviews always give me that nervous tingling sensation to get on with my own painting.

>>3283652
I also like about Rothko that, though his work is stunningly beautiful, he was wholly suspicious of the concept of beauty. He didn't want his work to be something pretty to look at for a bit. He wanted people to immerse themselves in his work and connect to a primordial state, free from all the hurly burly of modern life.

"You've got sadness in you. I've got sadness in me. And my works are places where the two sadnesses can meet, and therefore both of us can feel less sad."

>>3283662
I really need to take my time the next chance I can see his paintings. the thing that people easily confuse is the premise that art should be uplifting or representing beauty. i've always been intruiged by art that rustled my jimmies, made me uneasy, reminded me of some remote memory i've burried long ago or pretended to BE a memory. the best works of art raise more questions than they answer and have an open end.

>>3283666
Oh yeah, Guston said that the only art he really liked art that spooked him. That stirred up long lost memories and made him feel things from the deepest recesses of his mind.

>>3283524
>I urge you, a beginner artist with no art school connections and no decades of sucking jew dick so they can let you in the money laundering scheme
wew lad

>>3282693
You are like the nintendones that eat whatever nibtendo feeds them. This "painting" place is at the kindergarden ( and im not even sure about this)

>>3283694
>>I urge you, a beginner artist with no art school connections and no decades of sucking jew dick so they can let you in the money laundering scheme
>wew lad
you're a one trick pony. always the same jew conspiracy bullshit. it's getting boring.

>>3283815
weak

>>3283921
>I urge you, a beginner artist with no art school connections and no decades of [using nepotism] so they can let you in on the money laundering scheme

There now it is sanitized and you can't pick a scary word and ignore it.

>>3283931
all anime is loli
all anime is perverted
therefore, all anime fans are perverts and degenerate

there, same logic as yours.

>>3283647
Their apparent technical mastery is what, in my opinion, what really pushes these pieces

just that they know so much about "how" things are to be done, that they can then manipulate them and break them down to the basics, but it's out of purpose not out of lack of skill

>>3283938
?
Why are you helping my argument?

>all these pedantic pseudo-intellectual cargo cultists running damage control for a fucking orange rectangle

I hate to break it to you, but just because you're still paying $750 out of pocket a month to SAIC or some similar "institution" eight years after your graduation doesn't make you capable of some kind of supernatural insight that turns a fucking orange rectangle into a master craft or sublime expression.

The "history" of these pieces, the stories of the life-and-times of the artists that made them is all irrelevant narrative drivel no different from the celebrity worship, gossip-oriented television shows that lonely and obese middle-aged women watch with their arthritic cats. These narratives-and every last individual anecdote they contain-are completely immaterial to the fact that you are literally looking at a fucking orange rectangle. You're looking at it and you're pretending to be astounded by its "nuance" because you were weak enough to be pressured to do so, very often by the same people that have knowingly, intentionally subjected you to a lifetime of financial malaise or perhaps nearly as bad, wasted your fucking time with this embarrassing bullshit. Just fucking stop it.

>>3284299
Bruh you just haven't seen it in person, you gotta see it in person, it's a force of nature. You won't get it until then. If you do go see it in person and still don't get it you're an ignorant idiot.

>>3284299
>The "history" of these pieces, the stories of the life-and-times of the artists that made them is all irrelevant narrative drivel no different from the celebrity
and I'm sorry to break it to you, but all this is YOUR shitty, narrowminded opinion. It's like saying, Shakespeare sucks and in the next sentence, you admit that you haven't even read a single book of his, but you've "seen the Romeo and Juliet cover and that's all you ever need to know".

You are nothing but a little snotty child rebel. You repeat your same, boring, nihilistic and philistine arguments over and over again, and in the end it all just sounds like "stop being so smart!"

>>3284314
----> >>3283462
>>3283469
digital faggot detected

>>3284327
Why'd you quote me retard? I'm saying if you don't see it in person you can't see the paint specks on the canvas, the tiny details where you go "oooh there's a lot of emotions behind this stroke, really stirs up something within".

>>3284299
>The "history" of these pieces, the stories of the life-and-times of the artists that made them is all irrelevant narrative drivel

Why is it irrelevant?

>>3284333
you sounded cynical to me

>>3284339
Fuck off with your victim complex

>>3284340
go eat a dick
the cynical type response has been shitposted in almost every fucking discussion, you moron. "oh look how special it is! you need to see it upfront!"

>>3284344
>STILL getting triggered over fucking nothing
But you DO need to see it up front you drooling retard

>>3284333
do you think this type of person is going to give a fuck even if they miraculously managed to find themselves infront of the type of artwork in question? for all we know this is a non-artist troll that wandered in from another board or someone with downs syndrome that hates the confusing world around them. it's stupid to argue they should do X when they are showing such irrationality toward every argument, down to basic logical reasoning.

>>3284349
that's my point you idiot. i'm this >>3283462 guy for fucks sake

>>3283027
I've seen these IRL, & your argument still sucks.

>>3283262
I'm saving this for every future thread just like this one.

You don't have to like it to appreciate it

>>3283347
Hey, I'm the Grossmann fan!
Here's another.

>>3284386
cool, dude. I really enjoy his painting and I will try to find catalogues of his work. a very distinct style.

>>3284377
I don't appreciate the decline of white culture

>>3284391
https://www.instagram.com/david.grossmann.artist/

He's a quiet introverted type, I tell myself if he can get outside to paint,...so can I.

>>3284403
i honestly expected him to be from the last century, lol. i checked out his many photos on instagram. the fact that he paints outdoors so much is really encouraging. i'm doing a lot of drawing outdoors and i will move on to painting next year when it gets warmer. there's really nothing like working outside.

>>3284325
>comparing Rothko or Chris Ofecalphiliac to Shakespeare [LOL]

>comparing an orange rectangle to a book

>comparing someone actually looking at an orange rectangle without breathing through their mouth or being up their own ass to "not reading a book" at all

>implying you're "smart" for wasting your time, money or both at one of the insane asylums that have the audacity to masquerade as art schools these days

and of course

>implying other people are stupid for not following your shining example

That's a whole lot of non-sequiturs for just one post, MOMAron

Surely you have some more cookie-cutter softball arguments or rhetoric from out of your fine art proselyte playbook to share with the rest of us. I don't think photography has been brought up in this thread yet!

>>3284337
Because there's no compelling reason why it should be. Everyone has a personal story, some may be more entertaining than others, but that doesn't turn an orange rectangle into something other than what it is. It takes the uncanny pretentions of individual narcissists and their more organized, well-funded enablers to do that.

>>3284477
>I don't think photography has been brought up in this thread yet!
everybody here knows you don't read
---> >>3283462

>>3284477
>implying you're "smart" for wasting your time, money or both at one of the insane asylums that have the audacity to masquerade as art schools these days
you honestly sound like someone who got rejected at an art school. i feel sorry for you.

>>3284481
Nice try, you almost had a successful red herring there. I was talking about the ever present non-argument that the existence of photography makes the creation of "art that actually looks like things" irrelevant or at the very least somehow legitimizes the "nuanced" orange rectangles of the world. I'm surprised you'd managed to contain yourself up to this point, but I'm sure it would have reared its ugly head eventually whether I said anything or not. It always does.

>>3284299
man im one of the biggest proponents of Rothko type stuff but even i cant stand that image you posted.

>>3284299
>>3284314
The reason that it's so difficult for you people to grasp this is because it's a unique experience for every separate person who views the piece. You all are thinking in far too specific ideas to grasp the "feeling" that this work gives out to people. The energy, the aura, the color theory, etc.

>>3284496
yeah, very much so he does. This kind of weird bitterness towards academia from being unable to use it to it's best ability.

That is, you shouldn't view academia as some kind of mold that you are put into, but rather use it as inspiration to further yourself

>>3284559
photography doesnt make anything "irrelevant" because more often than not it looks better IRL than it does in a picture

>>3284582
not that anon but you can get inspiration on the internet without having to blow 40k +4 years
Can even go buy their books on w/e art subject interests you for further knowledge.

>>3284610
NO, THE INTERNET DOESN'T WORK YOU HAVE TO SEE IT IN PERSON AND LICK THE IMAGE AND THEN IMAGINE YOURSELF SUCKING THE ARTIST'S ANUS SO HARD MAYBE SOME OF HIS INCOMMENSURATE TALENT WILL PASS ON TO YOU, YOU FILTHY COCKROACH

>>3284610
I mean, yeah you can do that too, different approaches for different people. Going to an actual school or university helps with networking though, finding people who are similar interested as you are in the things you are. Personally i love being in college for this because it exposes me to a lot of different mindsets and skillsets in person

>>3284629
you sound mad

>>3282766
So underrated lmao

>>3282711
fpbp, get out OP, this is just a zoo for looking at retards

>>3284629
Now THIS is art

>>3282693
There was no thought involved here. Anything you see in it was not intended. It is no different from a chimp painting that pretentious idiots like >>3282711 would praise in an effort to appear more intelligent and sophisticated than they actually are if they were told it was actually painted by a human master painter and only geniuses could "get it."

Same type of dingbats as wine aficionados
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis

or random foodies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qa6QXBxxWw

The worst, most insufferable people.

>>3284299
The one moonbat (posted a lot in the early part of the thread) that keeps talking about the pollack kid seriously hates it when you point out the chimp painting prank ran on snooty art critics, they were completely fooled by random splatters from a fucking chimpanzee and praised them to high heaven, only one critic didn't like it and said it looked like a monkey painted it

>>3284840
You're right but you're also wrong. Fine art is in many cases, to be reductive, just paint randomly slathered on a canvas, but that doesn't devoid it of any meaning in the context of fine art. The art world is a deep and diverse well of imagery about meaning and method. The value placed on any piece of fine art is subjective not objective (usually) so just remember that your opinion is nothing more than that: a subjective opinion.

>>3284859
A deep and diverse well of imagery that flows in harmony to stimulate thought and action, and a rich tapestry of meaning and method that is presented in maieutic fashion pullulating to the subconscious of the onlookers the axiomatic truths of gender politics, historic patriarchal oppressions, and the dialectic dynamics of the kyriarchist agenda contra the heroic social justice struggle perfectly encapsulated in such pieces as Sarah Lukas's Cast of a Butt Sitting In Chair with Cigarette in Anus Hole, or menstrual blood leaked onto a carefully selected for rich subtext blank canvas. How dare anyone presume themselves to be the true interpreter of the truth unless they pretend to be a sophisticated genius that gets what the fast food gorging crabs cannot?

If you're angry about rothko it just sounds like you want to like him but you don't so you're frustrated

My point still stands

Go see it in person - multiple times. Until you get it. It's that simple.

You don't like it? Then provide a valid critique other than the typical soyboy herple derple muh FEEELIEEENGs

>>3284881
HEY SOYBOY. Rothko is the past, Brent is the future. You have to see this genius's work in person to truly get and appreciate the subtlety and mastery. If you don't visit the zoo at least once per week over the next four years you will never truly understand.

>>3284881
>You ain't gay bro? wtf you don't like cock? just gotta give blowjobs - multiple times. Until you get it. It's that simple

>>3284903
You're only helping my point.
>hate faggots
>try sucking dick
>gross
>keep trying
>oh i get it
>its kind of nice
>still not gay tho
>never suck a dick again
It's almost as if you think once the dick goes in your mouth you're a ru paul runway artist for life.

>>3284909
>oh i get it
>its kind of nice
>still not gay tho
imagine being this deep in the closet.

>>3284896
But I like that already so I guess I don't need to see it.

>>3284913
Whether or not I am is irrelevant to the hypothetical greentexted case-person; it's just your categorical brain shorting itself with all that cognitive dissonance. I bet you're the one that is gay here, you massive faggot. (see how easy that is)

>>3284919
>faggot going full damage control
kek.

>>3284955
Oh god please stop, I dont want people to find out I am gay.

>>3284881

If you're angry about not liking rothko it just sounds like you want to hate him but you don't so you're frustrated

My point still stands

Go see it in person - multiple times. Until you hate it. It's that simple.

You like it? Then provide a valid compliment other than the typical soyboy herple derple muh FEEELIEEENGs

>>3284840
>There was no thought involved here. Anything you see in it was not intended.

you dummy, no one is claiming Rothko was painting with the intention of "oh, this stroke is going to make the viewer think this!", it just does. He could have painted it with entirely different intentions, but like has been said previously, everyone who looks at a piece like this is going to have a different experience. It's something that can be both aesthetically appreciated and also appreciated on a deeper level

>>3284992
You are the definition of a Dunning-Kruger moron. If you saw some kid fumble through sleight of hand tricks you would tell the rest of the audience that he was a mystical wizard with command over arcane powers if you thought it would make you sound smart. You are an insufferable pseud queer. May you die a painful death, the sooner the better.

I don't get it. Are some of you guys legitimately mad about these artists being called geniuses and hating on them because of the "lack" of "skill" you have/should have or are you just lacking the capability to understand and get moved by the art produced of minds such as Rothko?

I just plaing don't get it.

>>3285020
>Dunning-Kruger moron
Oh boy, you ain't even using the term correctly. Man I didn't recall these board filled with such bitter anons. What happened? did /pol/ had a break out?

>>3285027
OH boy, hoo boy, I didn't read on the wiki article anything about being a faggot pseud so how can you apply the term to me??? Go back to /pol/, I'm heading back to redd1t!

>>3285041
Never change, /ic/

>>3285020
>being this butt-blasted that you don't "get" a piece of art
>needing the subject and purpose of the art to be painted right in front of you so your monkey brain can understand it

this is truly a lost cause

>>3285053
t. some queer from Maude Lebowski's inner circle

>>3284992
It's as valuable as a chimp painting, or a smeared shit, if there's no intention and it just does to you. what you don't understand is that those paintings have literally no value, no meaning, and no pupose, they only have as much as you decide to give them. You are the one projecting everything onto it. The "art" itself is nothing, it's just 3 boxes of nuanced color, yet as you try desperately to find meaning in it, you just end doing something called focused meditation.

People can do this in front of anything, coffee leftovers, rorschach tests, you name it, but because it's in front of a piece of framed and colored paper and not your bedroom wallpaper it's muh deep art. well, people are like always like this I guess, toasted bread with patterns looking like "jesus" made international news after all.

>>3284992
It's as valuable as a chimp painting, or a smeared shit, if there's no intention and it just does to you. what you don't understand is that those paintings have literally no value, no meaning, and no pupose, they only have as much as you decide to give them. You are the one projecting everything onto it. The "art" itself is nothing, it's just 3 boxes of nuanced color, yet as you try desperately to find meaning in it, you just end doing something called focused meditation.

People can do this in front of anything, coffee leftovers, rorschach tests, you name it, but because it's in front of a piece of framed and colored paper and not your bedroom wallpaper it's muh deep art. well, people are like always like this I guess, toasted bread with patterns looking like "jesus" made international news after all.

>it's another mindless /ic/ debate about modern art
Can't we make a Sakimichan or Proko thread instead?

>>3284299
You're a moron.

>>3284803
>>3284629

sure, my child
the absolute cesspool that is /ic/
>kids not knowing jack shit about art, materials or art history
>responding with meme images of cartoon faces >frowning at contemporary art
saying academic studying is bad, because "money"
>literally everything one says about art is "pretentious", no matter what - good one!
>bringing freak prank stories about monkeys up to explain that all of it is a joke
>saying going to a museum is meaningless
>"you can look at art on the internet wee wee!"
>not even enough reading comprehension:
>>3283462 & >>3283469
>petting each other on the shoulder for childish, nihilistic comments
this is a complete waste, over and over again

>>3284872
>A deep and diverse well of imagery that flows in harmony to stimulate thought and action, and a rich tapestry of meaning and method that is presented in maieutic fashion pullulating to the subconscious of the onlookers the axiomatic truths of gender politics, historic patriarchal oppressions, and the dialectic dynamics of the kyriarchist agenda contra the heroic social justice struggle perfectly encapsulated in such pieces as Sarah Lukas's Cast of a Butt Sitting In Chair with Cigarette in Anus Hole, or menstrual blood leaked onto a carefully selected for rich subtext blank canvas. How dare anyone presume themselves to be the true interpreter of the truth unless they pretend to be a sophisticated genius that gets what the fast food gorging crabs cannot?

>tl;dr muh shitty opinion on Sarah Lucas!!!
so interesting!

>>3284903
>gay
>blowjob
>ha ha ha!
there's no reasoning with pubescent children
sage

/thread

>>3285061
>try desperately to find meaning in it

nah you're still not understanding the point im getting at. It's not something that some people have to 'try' to find meaning in. certain pieces will just *click* and draw you in, especially if they're framed in the context of being something that requires a bit of personal projection. Could look at one piece of this art and look at it for 20, 30 minutes, could see another piece and walk right by it.

Something that can be both aesthetically AND/OR emotionally engaging. depending.

>>3285305
this anon has made up his mind about it. he and others have thrown their highschool-tier arguments around like demented people tossing their own shit against the wall in old people's homes. you will get the same, redundant replies and these brainiacs lack the maturity to both accept other people's taste and the fact that they don't know shit about fine art. they stand on a single-point-horizon, yet pretend to know it all, to have seen it all and have the ultimate measure of all things. seen it many times and predominantly in pseudo-rebellious, pubescent teens. they need someone to revel against and the anonymity on /ic/ is the perfect place for that.

just look at the responses:
>>3282766, >>3283045, >>3283196, >>3283262 and the shoulder-pet >>3284373, best of all >>3283476

Here, if any of you are actually interested in talking about art without having shitposters ruining things this discord server is for that specifically.

https://discord.gg/ruKfaZ

these threads are always fun, nevertheless they can never compare to 'what is art' threads on /pol/ or /v/. those are simply gold.

>>3285343
>3 people

hah
id like to see how far this goes before it tumbles on itself and dies

>>3285214
that's quite insightful

>>3285072
can somebody gime source on the guy in that meme i missed it and cant find it

>>3285364
is it any other way?

>>3285365
he's that war criminal who took cyanide at his sentencing

>>3285365
Slobodan Praljak

>>3282693
>>Not appreciating modern art as a symbol of the CIA and all the good work it's done for us

>>3284840
>There was no thought involved here. Anything you see in it was not intended.

There was a lifetime of thought put into each of Rothko's paintings, he's a whiny jew who spent years mastering the paintings you are too digital art to go see in person

every Rothko painting I have ever seen, even before I knew who he was, dominated the room it was in

art is simple, you either like it or you don't

to say there was no thought or no intention in a Rothko painting is just ignorance, the painting monkey will end up with a brown shit stain of a painting given free reign to paint, like most idiots, they just mix colors forever

>>3285206
>no counterargument
try again.

>>3285500
>dominated the room it was in
Again with this fucking meme. If you make a 7 foot tall painting of course t's gonna be dominating.

>>3285554
read again

>>3285555
just get the fuck out of here, why don't you
nobody cares about your shitty, edgy opinion. we know you hate Rothko. there's nothing else to your rant. go play somewhere else.

>>3285555
this opinion pretty much outlines and exposes the entire counterargument and why it's completely empty.

You're clearly just looking at it in a very shallow manner. You don't "get it" and that's clear with your completely amateur, ignorant "counterarguments" to why people like it

>>3285641
>this opinion pretty much outlines and exposes the entire counterargument and why it's completely empty.
>You're clearly just looking at it in a very shallow manner. You don't "get it" and that's clear with your completely amateur, ignorant "counterarguments" to why people like it
and the best he can respond to "not getting it" obviously is that saying that is some "intellectual bullshit". you can't fix stupid.

>>3285641
>this opinion pretty much outlines and exposes the entire counterargument and why it's completely empty.
>You're clearly just looking at it in a very shallow manner. You don't "get it" and that's clear with your completely amateur, ignorant "counterarguments" to why people like it
… and the best he/she can respond to obviously "not getting it" is that saying so is some "intellectual bullshit". you can't fix stupid. but they won't even admit that all that's left is their shitty negative opinion on the subject, no, somehow their whining and screeching is supposed to be the one and only reaction to contemporary art.
case closed.

>>3283414
>Visual concepts such as...?
you'd start with art theory, and learn about the differences between modernism and postmodernism.

>>3285650
>Anon folds his arms and a cums a a little in his pants as he defeats the philistines, who are surely crying and shaking with terror instead of just snorting at the self-righteous faggot and moving with their lives.
Ah, to be 20 again.

>>3282693
I don't know what you're talking about butI'm goin g to see the Rothko play in May

>>3284840
You think a chimp could create a composition like that in which colors and form work flawlessly together without distractions? There are prententious pieces of modern art (almost all conceptual art is) but Rothko is not. I'd much rather look at one of Rothko's painting than something Bob Ross made. If you don't like it fine, but don't call others pretentious if they do like it.

>There was a lifetime of thought put into each of Rothko's paintings

>it's an orange rectangle

>>3287554
You're missing out.

bump

>>3289900
why?

>>3290007
bump

>>3290281
dumb

>>3290295

>>3282693
Considering /ic/'s history with modern art, I can guess this thread is almost certainly bait.

However, I will have an open mind.

1.

Most people do not like modern art because it does not appear to have any skill or value on the surface.

It at least appears that anyone can make a piece of modern art with no formal training.

From an economic standpoint because supply is so easy to come by there should be no value.

The fact that people pay so much for these pieces means that they have some intrinsic value.

People seem to think this is due to an artificial social value.

Why are people willing to pay so much for modern art if it's worthless?

It has to be either due to the scarcity of a regular artist's paintings, or a symbol of social status among the rich.

2.

To most people there seems to be nothing aesthetically pleasing about modern art in any sense of the word.

Why do you consider modern art to be beautiful?

>>3291570
the problem with you and most people on /ic/ is that you mistake modern art and painting for a naive, rather fatuous practice. you look at art in a very superficial way. if something isn't evident or self-explanatory in the first few minutes, you get confused and frustrated. "not understanding" or being confused by an artwork often leads to anger.
second, many of those regular, pleb-tier critics on /ic/ seem to believe that a quick, harsh judgement is a good judgement. you dismiss something for being shit in a very radical way and hope to get praised for doing that. in other words, you love to be edgy with your opinions.

there is nothing easy or simplified in good, contemporary art. many of the concepts are so far away from most of your thinking that you have a hard time even comprehending what the themes are. if all you ever do is look at lewd girls in medievil armor in cool poses or "porn art" (what a euphemism), you have absolutely no base of understanding. these are opposing sides of the spectrum. there is literally no overlapping, except for being "visual forms of art".

watch this interview and listen in particular to what the painter Tal R has to say about painting, about art education, earning a living, basically living for doing art and life philosophy.
this kind of devotion is nowhere to be found in commission seeking concept artists, for a good reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeU6in3j40c

>>3291570
the problem with you and most people on /ic/ is that you mistake modern art and painting for a naive, rather fatuous practice. you look at art in a very superficial way. if something like a painting isn't self-evident or self-explanatory in the first few minutes, you get confused and frustrated. "not understanding" or being confused by an artwork often leads to anger. this openness of an artwork arguably the driving force behind it. you can see it in most of the 20th century painting, from Edward Hopper to René Magritte up to David Hockney.
second, many of those regular, pleb-tier critics on /ic/ seem to believe that a quick, harsh judgement is a good judgement. you dismiss something as being shit in a very radical way and hope to get praised for doing that, simply for being radical about it. in other words, you love to be edgy with your opinions. this is false pride.

there is nothing easy or simplified in good, contemporary art. many of the concepts are so far away from most of your thinking that you have a hard time even comprehending what the themes are. if all you ever do is look at lewd girls in medievil armor in cool poses or "porn art" (what a euphemism), you have absolutely no base of understanding. that's a fact. you can whine about how elitist that may sound with "rick and morty" memes all you want. "big" art compared throw-away anime or concept art … these are opposing sides of the spectrum. there is literally no overlapping, except for being "visual forms of art".

watch this interview and listen in particular to what the painter Tal R has to say about painting, about art education, earning a living, basically living for doing art and life philosophy.
this kind of devotion is nowhere to be found in commission seeking concept artists, for a good reason.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k1-wfHzg2c