/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3591492
cameras

>>3591495
/thread??

modern art was inspired by japanese imports, mainly hokusai prints. impressionists tried to recreate a western version which was more or less finalized by cezanne. except no one really knew what to do with it and westerners did their usual thing of fucking it up and weaponizing it (postmodernism). artists have been laying cultural booby-traps since the cubists and surrealists. postmoderns freaked the fuck out not knowing what to do. now no one bothers beyond the curious hobbyist and most are going into abstraction without purpose, traditional, or cartoons.

>>3591505
yeah it's all basically part of the industrial revolution. The rise in automation, mechanization, urbanization and everything else that was going on then in the real world made the art world go bananas.

Suddenly they saw that you could stand in front of a box with a shudder that would burn light onto film and capture an EXACT image. Basically taking a shit on everything that happened in the renaissance. And once they saw it was possible they knew it would only become more accessible and accurate and who knows one day maybe they'll even CAPTURE MOVEMENT!

Now these master craftsmen that spent their entire life figuring out how not to draw people like potato faced retards, and could impressanyone with "well yeah it looks pretty much like the real thing" to now having to compete with a service that is cheaper, faster, and the final product is "that's literally me." Get fucked drawfag.

So the art world started shifting focus and study or money to art that expressed more meaningful concepts and emotions and abstracted ideas over how well it accurately captured what reality looks like. Which is why Impressionism and Post-impression and the groundwork it layed for like abstract and stuff in that era was so fascinating.

And then as photo production became the obvious growth industry of the future, it would have started drawing away young creatives that might have gotten into painting/fine arts had photography not existed.

Cat got out of the bag with industrialization and everything that's happened since has been humanity losing their shit about it.

Time is entropy. Art history is a reflection of this.

>>3591509
Weebs should be gassed

>>3591509
watch out /ic/ hates that the french school was influenced by japanese stuff for some reason

>>3591492
late enough of the scientific mind to be applied to the arts, but before the popularization of photography

>>3591492 (OP)
late enough for science to influence image making, but early enough in the life of photography for painting to still be relevant.

>>3591599
So you would prefer a photo over a painting on your living room wall?

>>3591492
Don't you like Hopper? His etchings are God tier.
Plenty of Russian & Ukraine artists working now that I envy the abilities of. ie. Denis Gorodnichy
https://www.instagram.com/denisgorodnichy/

>>3591509

Nobody on /ic/ should even be taking a single word seriously that comes out of this delusional asshole.

>>3591745
I like both, it depends on subject and execution.
But the fact is that around that time, people were starting to think that 'realism' was kind of useless as art because photographs would replace it. Jules Verne even speculated in one of his lesser SF books that realist paintings would become totally worthless.
So artists of that period had to try new things. Experiment. But they were still deeply rooted in realism, because it was their core training, so they broke it while still perfectly understanding the rules, and that is why it works so well.

>>3591779
they weren't breaking rules though. that's a misconception that comes of smoodging all 'modern art' into one big pile, most kinds of modern art were about exploring the rules more deeply, understanding colour theory in a more complete way, thinking about design and paint and the canvas. not throwing out 'realism' to escape the tyranny of photography, the same impetus that lead to the development of photography lead to modern art.

>>3591781
If you want to put it that way, yes, they weren't breaking rules as much as they were pushing theories to their limits, breaking free from realism, but the fact is that the need to go that way was also a consequence of photography starting to invade the realist field.
It's also why japanese art had an influence. Japanese art never really went in the realist direction, so when trying to depart from realism, coinciding with exposure to an art form that wasn't relying on it, led to artists studying that form of art and trying to understand its appeal.

>>3591782
no that's incorrect. they weren't breaking away from realism at all. it wasn't a reaction to photography. maybe later postwar but not in the 1880-1920 kinda period. they weren't pushing the theories to the limits in the sense that they were trying to make wacky pictures while technically staying within the rules. the reason they were painting like they were was entirely theoretical, they were looking for more realism, not less, a more accurate experience in terms of light, colour and the human machine.

>>3591771
https://www.deviantart.com/techgnotic/journal/Paul-Cezanne-The-Bridge-From-Monet-To-Picasso-508440608
fuck you too kid

>>3591745
like Fine arts and painting and stuff back thing was kind of a lot more about the artist being able to replicate a camera. Most things that were commissioned back then were portraits or rich people, where the goal was less about "hey look at this painting" and more about "hey look at grandma."

So then cameras enter the game and now instead of posing for some jackass for hours, you stand still in front of a science box for a few minutes and it captures a reflective image of who you actually were at the time.

But yeah plenty of people now fill their walls with personal photos and aesthetic photography memes and whatever. Like in 1850 it wasn't possible to hang up a photo on your living room wall. By 1950 essentially everyone had photos on their wall. Impressionism was that period in time when an entire industry realized it was fucked and started getting creative to stay relevant before it was all over. What "being an artist" meant was shifted from rewarding technicians like Millet or Manet to rewarding weirdos like Van Gogh or Manet.

>>3591941
imagination drawings and people like rembrandt existed before the camera. thinking art before then was only a standin for the camera is painfully ignorant. tho you post with those spam images so i'm not surprised you aren't contributing.

>>3591745
>>3592139
Stop giving this attentionwhoring fag (you)s.

>>3592139
>thinking art before then was only a standin for the camera is painfully ignorant.
OVERWHELMINGLY most art was. It was much more of a technical profession that it is generally seen as now.

And motherfucking Rembrandt's primary source of income was from patrons that hired him to paint them as they looked in reality. His shit was straight up about "hey look at grandpa with all his militia buds that were painted life sized and hung in their great hall."

I was even going to mention Rembrandt as a great example of an artist that functioned "as a camera." He was great at capturing a sense of movement and action and telling a story with a single dynamic, realistic image. It was his kind of aesthetic and function that was what the camera was threatening the most. He was capturing often to-scale depictions of reality and history and life way more than he was ever focused on emotions or abstractions or whatever.

>tho you post with those spam images so i'm not surprised you aren't contributing.
but you just implied that Rembrandt was an impressionist?

Like yeah we can site examples of proto-impressionism and stuff going back forever, but those are kind of exceptions that prove the rule often being done by artists as a goof. The things that people were MOSTLY buying and commissioning, aka what the industry was focused on, was Realism. Depictions of life portrayed in "accurate" ways. And then cameras become a thing and everything swung to impressionism. Not a coincidence.

>>3591941
This is utterly ridiculous and ignores the actual history of art, and how it was approached and consumed. Laughably untrue, and adorably naive.

I get that you're getting an ego boost from spamming your art here and in other forums on 4chan, and getting attention, but that doesn't make you knowledgeable in any way. I would highly recommend you drop the attitude, learn the real history of art (Gombrich's book is a good place to start), and show some respect.

The most obvious thing i get from watching your posts, is how little you know about art, and more importantly, how little respect you have for it. Which makes your comments amusing, at best.

>>3592197
>much more of a technical profession
>that it is generally seen as now.
>Rembrandt as a great example of an artist that functioned "as a camera."
>you just implied that Rembrandt was an impressionist?
>Depictions of life portrayed in "accurate" ways.
>And then cameras become a thing and everything swung to impressionism.

i get you want attention but you can find just as much on the more populated boards.

>>3592211
I get that you're a faggot but this isn't an argument.
>>3592203
>This is utterly ridiculous and ignores the actual history of art, and how it was approached and consumed.
You saying this doesn't make it true. The major industry focus before impressionism was realism. And the major source of commissions at the time were portraits to capture a person's image.
>Laughably untrue, and adorably naive.
I like how you dicks love just empty negating.
>I get that you're getting an ego boost
I get that you're an ad hominem virgin that doesn't have an argument.
>but that doesn't make you knowledgeable in any way.
More knowledgable that you. Have you been to the rijksmuseum? Are you even out of high school?
>I would highly recommend you drop the attitude, learn the real history of art (Gombrich's book is a good place to start), and show some respect.
I would highly recommend you learn how to form a coherent argument instead of acting like an impotent retard for no reason.
>The most obvious thing i get from watching your posts, is how little you know about art
says the guy that literally cannot demonstrate any basic knowledge of anything. You're just going "nu uh because you're a fag."
>and more importantly, how little respect you have for it.
Respect it more than you do clearly. Disingenuous retard.
>Which makes your comments amusing, at best.
Your comment isn't amusing. It's sad. And you're stupid. kys.

>>3592220
Yeah, about what I expected. I've seen guys like you a bunch of times, seen it before. You get a little success or attention, you think you're now a master of your domain, and know it all. Or you're trolling. Either way, I don't really give a flying fuck, but I'll still call out your pompous nonsense for what it is.

Narcissism is a hell of a drug, you're a perfect poster child for it.

>>3592220
stop replying with so many greentexts you fucking sperg

>>3592225
>Yeah, about what I expected.
What would you expect? You didn't say anything.
>'ve seen guys like you a bunch of times, seen it before.
I haven't seen you and I never will. You're not making an argument. You're acting like a buttblasted asshole at me for some reason.
>You get a little success or attention, you think you're now a master of your domain, and know it all.
Not really. I even wrote a research paper in college about Rembrandt and how what he was doing with his paintings was kind of the foundation for what filmmaking ended up becoming. He was ABSOLUTELY making the type of stuff that became less important to people once the picture shows started happening. People weren't as focused on doing what he was doing with painting because they could do it with cameras, which were new and flashy and sciency.

>Or you're trolling.
How are you not trolling? What even are you trying to say? Other than that I must be wrong because I post my work?

>Either way, I don't really give a flying fuck,
Well thanks for the (you) telling me how much you don't care about intellectual honesty or art history. That was self-evident though. You didnt need to say anything.

>but I'll still call out your pompous nonsense for what it is.
I'm not wrong. This is basic history. impressionism was a reaction to industrialization. Rembrandt was not an impressionist AT ALL. What the fuck are you saying?

>Narcissism is a hell of a drug, you're a perfect poster child for it.
I'm more histrionic that narcissistic. I'm a child of a narcissist, which means I like being abused by malignant retards. That's where you come in.
>>3592230
>stop replying with so many greentexts you fucking sperg
No. Stop not having an argument you impotent doodoo mouth.

I take back the AT ALL. He was a proto-impressionist sometimes. A lot of his work influenced what impressionism became. Because all of art history is about building on what came before. Being able to cite examples of art from before the Impressionist period that features aspects of the style doesn't negate the reality that OVERWHELMINGLY most art being produced back then was commissions for rich people, churches, militaries, etc. With no other means to capture reality, painting focused on capturing reality. Once an emerging technology showed up that did that better and cheaper, focus shifted in art from capturing reality to capturing vibes and moods and emotion and how it draws your eye around and everything else.

>>3592249
i'd tell you to recheck your facts and especially your dates, but you're a pompous tard that gets off on public stupidity.

i report you for spam every time i see your faggy pictures in any thread.

>>3592238
Yeah, you're trolling. No more (you)s for you - been ignoring you anyway, should have known better than to engage. It's just 4chan, so it doesn't matter, in the long run.

The only good thing is I can tell right away what posts to ignore, because you attach your art to it, so keep it up, it makes ignoring you much more efficient. It's just sad that any attempt at actual art discussion is drowned out by your bullshit, but again, it's 4chan, I have low expectations anyway.

>>3592255
>i'd tell you to recheck your facts and especially your dates, but you're a pompous tard that gets off on public stupidity.
If you knew how I was wrong you'd say it.
>i report you for spam every time i see your faggy pictures in any thread.
Neat. Imagine being THIS jealous and impotent that you report people for posting art in the art board.
>>3592256
>Yeah, you're trolling.
Yeah I'm "trolling" some fucking dipshit tweens with super basic art history.
>The only good thing is I can tell right away what posts to ignore
Nobody cares about how you self-censor.
> because you attach your art to it, so keep it up,
I absolutely will. You will never be missed by anyone.
>It's just sad that any attempt at actual art discussion is drowned out by your bullshit, but again, it's 4chan
I'm the one having a conversation about a period in art history that I'm dedicating a decade of my life to studying and drawing parallels to. And you're triggered because I post reaction images on 4chan.
>but again, it's 4chan, I have low expectations anyway.
You don't have an argument. You clearly aren't here to have a discussion about impressionism.

Why don't you feel embarrassment when you act like this? What's wrong with your parents?

Most commissions were less about the painting and more about the person? I kek'd

>>3592278
yes. By an overwhelming margin. We don't even have 90% of the paintings produced hundreds of years ago because they were just paintings that people commissioned because they wanted an image of themselves or their family or a place that looked nice.

The focus was WAY MORE about accurate representation of the subject than the artist circlejerking about their aesthetics.

I honestly can't even fathom what is hard to grasp about this other than that you're a both retarded and tryhard.

Acting like an affronted avoidant self-censoring retard is why you're NGMI

>>3592283
>extremist opinion
>extremist reaction
>ignores art culture
>ignores every art movement except like 2 that fit into his narrow account of history
>>everyone else is retarded because they aren't as dumb as me. i don't have to argue anything but you need to convince me even though i'm stupid.

>>3592283
Better one interesting concept art pice than a million bland but accurate paintings of rich people I say. Also not necessarily accurate cuz people don't wanna be painted as ugly

>>3592306
>ad hominem
>no argument
>desperate greentexting
And exactly which part is an "extremist opinion?" Impressionism was part of industrialization. The fuck?
>>3592310
>Better one interesting concept art pice than a million bland but accurate paintings of rich people I say.
Yeah I'm not saying that realism was dope, just how things were.
>Also not necessarily accurate cuz people don't wanna be painted as ugly
Yeah that's why Van Gogh wasn't really popular in his lifetime. He was often making "ugly" peasant paintings and portraits with lopsided eyes and shit that his contemporaries didn't like.

And it's not like in the impressionism era there wasn't still realism and other styles of shit going on, people just don't really give a shit about it now. The things that ultimately matter more are the things that influenced future movements. Impressionism was the beginning of a huge schism of focus away from from Realism. It was the most important movement that determined where art went in the 20th century, so everyone circlejerks the fuck about it.

OP here. Glad I started this thread, it's been a v enlightening (albeit hostile) discussion. Bumping for more juicy debate if anyone's still game.