/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3731675
lrn2arthistory

I love abstract stuff like pic related, yet I too can't get into Pollock-ish art. It can't communicate anything since it's completely randomized

>>3731675
It's the power of "you just don't get it".
See? You just don't get it.

There is no way to objectively criticize this shit, because it means nothing, does nothing and takes no skill to make. You can only say you don't like it, and if you don't like it, you don't get it.

This is actually the ultimate form of art, in its being completely worthless shit it's perfect.

I think some of these have nice color choices and patterns. Not sure why many of them are worth so much money but still.

>>3731675
"modern art was a mistake" troll thread No. 639, here we go ...

>>3731677
Aight here's the art history lesson
>now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.
>The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.
>Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.

This plus >>3731679 the fact that modern art is completely impervious to attack thanks to "you just don't get it" made it metastasize the art world irrevocably, forever.

Even the very best academics were vulnerable to being taken down by critics, but modern art, the shittier the better, just can't be attacked. It's too high brow for you.

Thanks Gauguin, thanks Picasso, etc.

>>3731675
pretty sure Pollock would laugh at you for angery-shilling his art, over half a century after it had caused a ruckus. with every "meh meh meh it's not art! modern art sucks!" thread, you indirectly advertise the impact it had and still has. you are basically cucking yourself here.

get over Pollock already, you sniveling little bitch. there is way more other awful art to look at. look at the "celebrities painting" thread.

>>3731693
>Can't even discuss it

Shut up CIA

>>3731693
>look at the "celebrities painting" thread.
the thing is that celebrities are already celebrities so they're at least one bit talented in something
Pollock was a 'painter' by profession

>>3731700
>>3731697
>>3731690
>the CIA has used art as a subversive device in economic warface
>therefore, all art after that is illigitimate
>the CIA has vastly manipulated several media including student associations in Operation Mockingbird
>therefore, all student associations and all media, including print media, have been rendered illegitimate.

your logic.
is shit.

>>3731675
>ITT: Glow in the dark niggers

>>3731679
>It's the power of "you just don't get it".
yeah actually, you really don't get it. sounds legit.
why else would a butthurt little shitstain make "modern art was a mistake" threads periodically? something stirs you up about it. maybe it's your own lack of success.

>>3731708
I didn't make this thread and I haven't even been on /ic/ in years, this is the first thread of this kind I see. Modern art just offends my senses and my intellect.

>>3731712
>offends my senses and my intellect.
I can see that. anything that is challanging to an idiot usually causes anger and frustration.

>>3731712
>offends my senses and my intellect.
I can see that. anything that is challenging to an idiot usually causes anger and frustration.

>>3731719
>"U JUST DUN GEDDIT!!!!!!!! UR STUPIDDD!!!!"
This is your brain on modern art. Please keep consuming Pollock tier garbage until you stop functioning completely.

>>3731722
I'm not even that much into Pollock to be honest. But I just find it super hilarious that you and other anons are so fucking butthurt about paintings that are like well over 50 years old and painting in the meantime has branched off into completely different fields after action painting and post-impressionism.

you very much remind me of some kid, discovering something that they happen to dislike and throwing a tamper tantrum, constantly telling everyone they meet how much they hate this thing. who cares? your opinion is a tiny fly on an elephants' ass. the impact of Pollock is undeniable.

>>3731728
>the impact of Pollock is undeniable.
Of course, that's why everything since the CIA push has been shit

>>3731730
>>the CIA has used art as a subversive device in economic warface
>>therefore, all art after that is illigitimate
>>the CIA has vastly manipulated several media including student associations in Operation Mockingbird
>>therefore, all student associations and all media, including print media, have been rendered illegitimate.
your logic.
is shit.

got any other argument? this CIA shit really sucks and makes no sense whatsoever.

>>3731675
Don't you see the limited color palette? The way the bright yellow line in the middle dominates the composition? The energy of the paint? Doesn't your eye travel through the image? This is a masterpiece that could only have been done by Pollock. Also I recommend you see this up close, it's a totally different experience

>>3731732
>got any other argument?
As I said modern art is completely void of worth, skill and sense, so I can only say it's shit.

The CIA shit is a fact, you really find it hard to believe that culture had been manipulated during the Cold War?

>>3731728
>I'm not even that much into Pollock to be honest.
>But I'll throw a fit and call you names if you say that his influence has been cancerous

>>3731737
>Also I recommend you see this up close, it's a totally different experience
Does it also *smell* like shit?

>>3731745
you couldn't recreate and early Pollock tribal painting if you had months to refine it.
Pollock has experimented with drip paint mixtures for a long time until he got it just right for "Lavender mist" and others.

What is your signature, OP? Do you produce any art that is worth mentioning to other people than mommy, daddy, granny and friends?

>>3731703
>hurr durr

>>3731759
ah yeah, the good old "hurr durr" that tells us the anon has run out of arguments.
bye now! see you in your next autistic "modern art was a mistake" thread!

>>3731690
>Even the very best academics were vulnerable to being taken down by critics, but modern art, the shittier the better, just can't be attacked. It's too high brow for you.
there is plenty of "modern art" (you mean contemporary art) that doesn't make it. just look around in your town and i'm sure there's at least one middle-aged lady painting abstract smear and painting knife pictures and huge flowers. contemporary art is often self-reflecting, referential and based on art history. plenty of shit art out there that is ngmi for a good reason.

>>3731690
>Thanks Gauguin, thanks Picasso, etc.
lmao you really think they have caused this? you complete and utter idiot. out of all the artists, Gauguin and Picasso.

>>3731756
>you couldn't recreate and early Pollock tribal painting if you had months to refine it.
Ah yes, the good old 'random smears of shit are unique in their being random smears of shit' argument
>Pollock has experimented with drip paint mixtures for a long time until he got it just right for "Lavender mist" and others.
Yeah I experiment too with a good cup of espresso and toilet paper, just about every day
>Do you produce any art that is worth mentioning to other people than mommy, daddy, granny and friends?
Actually I do but I have high standards for what it's worth showing to others because I'm not a fraud and I take my hobby seriously.

>>3731767
>I take my hobby seriously.
ngmi

the fact that you try to pin it on Gauguin and Picasso really shows that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. you basically disqualify yourself as a perfect example of an art philistine with "muh high standards", while you have no base of judgement with your patchy art knowledge.

>>3731767
in your own words. when did "modern art" cause the decline that you like to see in it? at which point, which artists, which art works in particular have started the "downfall" of "beautiful art".
which art is still legitimate these days and why?
in which direction has painting gone since Jackson Pollock / or the artists that you believe have caused art to downspiral into something meaningless that "anyone can do"?

>>3731767
>>3731675
if you dismiss Pollock so easily, I bet you can explain how he arrived at his drip painting technique and what the idea behind it is.

>>3731777
>>3731771
After post-impressionism, art has taken a turn for the worse. I don't value academic painting but rejecting those standards kickstarted the degradation and allowed hacks to become popular. Once the movement was established, artists were pretty much forced into adapting their art or retiring. There never was 'more freedom'

>>3731777
>in which direction has painting gone since Jackson Pollock / or the artists that you believe have caused art to downspiral into something meaningless that "anyone can do"?
Pic related is a direct consequence of the metastasis

>>3731777
>which art is still legitimate these days and why?
There's a revival of impressionism and realism and representative art in general, thankfully.

>>3731779
>I bet you can explain how he arrived at his drip painting technique and what the idea behind it is.
Oh, I guess the thought process was similar to the artist dropping eggs from her vagina in >>3731795 ?

>>3731795
>thinks that feminist student Actionism has anything to do with painting
try again

Actionism never makes the claim to be in the vein of the media they use to document or set up a performance. Actionism typically uses some sort of art media to make a record of the happening: drawing, photography, painting, sound recording, written text and scripts etc.

come back when you have works other than from some no-name bitch in her first year in gender studies

>>3731823
This shit has everything to do with expressionism.

>>3731828
not in the slightest. prove your shitty assumption and explain how in gods name this has any meta connection to expressionist painting at all.
(mind you, your next mistake: art movements include influences in all media. so there is expressionist poetry, expressionist movies, expressionist music. if you try to pin this on Pollocks paintings alone, because it has "started with expressionism", you just scored the second disqualification for yourself)

Anons on /ic/ cry about art half a century ago as if it was the last thing to ever happen in art, or that nothing else was happening at the time, then and now.

>>3731842
I'm not going to explain two centuries of art history. You win. Enjoy your shitty art.

>>3731728
what impact?

whoever protects Pollock's bullshit is insane beyond saving

>>3731976
that's 99% of artists, art curators, gallerists, art historians ... pretty much the entire art world against you. have fun being antagonistic out of severe butthurt.

>>3732017
>99%
Lmao imagine believing this

>>3732017
>severe butthurt
anon you keep sitting in this thread waving pointless claims at people just because they dislike some faggot expressionist pseud

Congratulations, art history which is pretty much as valuable as gender studies and the whole world of money laundering agrees with you

>>3732020
>pseud
hi Jia cucktard! wanking your tiny sausage to pedophilia again? hows attall doing?

>>3732024
>hi Jia cucktard!
I don't even like Ruan Jia
>wanking your tiny sausage to pedophilia again?
Where does that come from? Are you projecting?

You're acting like a literal baby.

Modern art is like veganis, everyone knows it’s dumb
The eternal butt of jokes

>>3732076
>le random vegan hate
hello my dear redditor good sir

>>3732079
Vegan alert vegan alert
Enjoy your tofurkey this thanksgiving?
God, just mentioning the things you eat is a joke enough
Soi soye SssooooOoYyYyyy is fake food
God I love a good cone of ICE CREAM
I love a good nice cold glass of thick creamy MILK
I bet reddit is vegan town central
Check this RARE get, like I like my burgers btw

>>3732087
I'm not even vegan, I'm vegetarian. I don't eat onions. You're a big baby, eat your vegetables.

>>3731690
>this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US

yea that's just reaching really hard

>>3732017
>99%
Kek, Chunbum you never get old

>>3731675
Another thread where a brainlet that hasn't picked up an art history book in his life tries to simplify all of the different movements and concepts in two easy camps based just on what he likes and what he doesn't like. GG the modernist revolution.

>>3731690
>The real history is this conspiración theory
Why do autist always explain everything in conspiracies? Is like you live on a childrens cartoon.

>>3731675
what IS art?

>>3731976
Whoever is incapable of being able to understand and appreciate Pollock's bullshit or it's place in time or it's general aesthetic appeal isn't going to make it.

82. awkward question.jpg

>>3731675
I'm in a gray area on the whole issue. One part is aesthetics, and another is intentionality.

Patterns and colors by themselves can be beatific and pleasing to look at. Consider for a moment the attached picture of some stone. If I had a counter top, I'd uchratherhave it tiled with this than a white plastic material. So from my perspective, the tile would be objectively more beautiful. The rest depends on your definition of art. Certainly the tile cutter shouldn't take credit for the random patterns in the stone. Nor would he be trying to convey a moral message of narrative. Pollocks method was go throw things at the canvas and see what sticks, both literally and also metaphorically. His work is only famous because it's historical place in time. Basically he was pushing this type of artwork and culture was accepting it. Objectively the work is no better or worse than a piece of stone with inclusions, which could cost a few thousand at most. Hence his work is important the way Rosa Parks was important. Not really but sorta. Just being the first to get recognized? The boondocks joke was that she was just a black lady that was tired and didn't want to get up. But she was formed into a symbol just as pollock was.

>>3732163
Beautiful* sorry my auto correct is changing all my words today.

Also rather have*

>>3732163
Yeah, pretty much this. Also, the whole justification of Pollock work was that he was representing his subconcious by trying to be random, for the time it was an interesting idea, but nowadays we know the mind doesn't work that way.

What /ic/ autist often forget is that you can recognice something as art withouth thinking is good art.

>>3732358
>you can recognize something as art without thinking is good art

Well put.

>>3731675
it's harder than it looks.
Only people who really care about art will be able to appreciate.
Painters and art collector types. really hard to explain, but i'm a fan.
It's not anything pretentious, it's just as subjective as art can get imo.

>>3731795
representative painting did not really go away, Art Today by Lucie-Smith even has a section on neoclassicist revival that happened two or three decades ago, this "the art world is just conceptualist shilling because no one cares for my capeshit on canvass" is just typical /ic/ cope

>>3731675
The only value art has is the value humans assign to it. People will pay artists ridiculous amounts of money for pretty much anything. It doesn't mean much at all. Who cares if people think this is good? It's good in someone's eyes and it's not like it's your money.

>>3733605
damn. that's hot. them shapes.

>>3733890
I suppose. But that doesn't mean there are no distinctions you can make at all. The only value that is in a book is what humans assign to it. Yet there is a difference between a well done novel with layers of meaning and metaphor and 300 pages of random typed symbols that a monkey pumps out.

There's differences in intentionality and message.

>>3731675
it just looks cool man. Don't get me wrong, Pollock was a fucking dick head and I hate him, but I mean his pieces are just kinda cool to look at.

People mixing Pollock and Picasso as if they weren't in 2 completely different art movements still baffles me
And you always pick these 2 names because they're the only ones you vaguely heard of

>>3732125
Please learn to paint portraits jimmy. You have potential. Get past this phase of shitting out this gross looking art and progress

>>3731675
Why is that morons think that art is some kind of goal or achievement? Same with science
>now this art, I finally achieved it
>after all this years I pushed the field forward now I became science
It's absurd. Like there is some barrier between pre-art and art.
Imagine some cavemen suppressing his need, his lust, his instinct for expression because art would only start in renaissance period with old masters.
>guys don't paint that cave, leave it to future generations, we're not good enough

The thing with modern art and post-modern is that they don't have the same purpose or pursuit of figurative painting. They don't try the same, and sometimes they don't even try at all. But that's why they fall under modern definitions. They came to be thanks to the liberty of the modern man, the rejection of traditions and the standard imposed upon them. Not because some agency was conspiring against the russians.

Besides, what's the problem with a guy dripping paint over a canvas? What's the problem with people genuinely liking those paintings and paying for them? If you found that the CIA was secretly funding your favorite figurative artist with ulterior motives you'll go like "wtf i hate him now"? I don't know.

I think the appreciation for this kind of painting was always there but since no one was doing them nobody knew. Like some new fetish discovered unintended on 4chan.

>>3731675
Look up the "In the Studio" videos from MoMA. They're free on Youtube and explain how to approach modern art, including the thought process behind the paintings. Learn something instead of shitposting.

modern art is the jazz/rap of painting. white men pretending to be niggers.

>>3736347
Go back to /pol/.