/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4411905
>bad art
I think art is not your thing, and never will. Stop fooling yourself and leave this beast to people who resonate with it

>>4411905
It'd be easier for me to show you good "modern art".
Pic related.

>>4412091
By all means go ahead

>>4411905
I love modern art, post more "bad" examples

>>4412209
I did.

>>4412209

>>4412209
These two I saw myself at the Detroit Institute of Arts. Looking at a picture of a piece like this or above is nothing compared to actually seeing it in person. I could go into more detail if you really need me to

I like the pieces in this thread..
except this >>4412446
When "Modern art" or abstract and conceptual pieces are done right you should feel some type of way. Often, the name of the piece or knowledge of the artist can supplement the work itself.

>>4412444
this looks really pretty

>>4412444
ebin

>>4412444
Is the line really choppy or is this just an artifact?

Not Modern, but Contemporary art: Everything by Mr. Brainwash. He’s a street artist wannabe whose work carries little to no meaning whatsoever. He just copied a bunch of street and pop artists and used the hype surrounding Banksy in Exit Through the Giftshop to kickstart his art career.

>>4413178
Look at the borders of the painting; looks like artifacts.

>>4413297
Just looked him up and wow, everything this dude does is garish and horrendous. Worse yet, he peddles his shite for tens of thousands of dollars. I thought people who had that much disposable cash would at least have taste that moved beyond what you'd see on a T-shirt at Walmart.

>>4412744
It's definitely more of a Modern Expressionist piece than Abstract. It gives off a certain feeling of unease that the artist was definitely going for. Unfortunately the picture got rotated because Mimi/4Chan was being a bitch

>>4411905
>digital artists talk shit on modern art but wouldn't be able to apply gesso evenly and spray paint two straight line without control z and layers

>>4413297
Ya, this guys the graffitee version of Jeff Koons.

>>4413771
>spray paint two straight line without control z and layers
I guess a digital artist made the art in OP's image

>>4411979
>>4413771
Butthut trannies lol. Modern aret isn't art and you aren't women.
That >>4413229 is infinitely more valuable than all of your shitstains combines.

>>4413297
>>4413381
Banksy is a shit meme too. His art has any meaning you imagine in the head.
>muh kissing cops
Does it means that the cops are faggots? Or does it mean than homosexuality is brave and manly? Maybe it means that the cops are people with feeling too.
It means whatever the fuck you think it means beecause it meant nothing to Banksy himself.

Just like the black square.
Maybe it's the niggers stealing coal at nigh.
Maybe its a picture of a really hot girl hidind behind the black screen, whatever, imagine a cool painting here.

>>4413803
Based

>>4413803
>Maybe its a picture of a really hot girl hidind behind the black screen
Personally I choose to imagine this

>>4413803
>coomwaifu is infinitely better than completely different art made to draw focus and evoke emotion and atmosphere using only simple shapes and colors
>implying trannies don't exclusively save thousands of photos of coomwaifus to fantasize about transforming into while they coom

b8?

>>4413863
>completely different art made to draw focus and evoke emotion and atmosphere using only simple shapes and colors
You can do that without flinging paint mindlessly onto a canvas or hanging a banana onto a wall. Modern "art" isn't created by artists. It's created by people who don't know how to create art, so they instead create a giant turd and tell the people looking at it to use their imagination to imagine it's something other than a turd.

>>4413856
oh, i actually really like this

>>4413900
thanks!

>>4413863
>coomwaifu is infinitely better than a dirtry rag

Yes.
Ever heard of the king with no clothes?
>here's a magical robe sire, the fools can't see it.
>Well shit ofcourse I can see it, i'm not a fool

Same with the modern and abstract art.
>here's the rag I used to clean my brush, it's full of profound meaning and value for the real art experts

>>4413881
>You can do that without flinging paint mindlessly onto a canvas or hanging a banana onto a wall

You can also do it while not making a recreation of material things.

Just because more complexly created emotional pieces exist doesn't mean that low complexity emotional pieces are worthless or shouldn't exist.

To be able to evoke emotion with extreme simplicity is a special type of art when virtually all else involves the opposite.

>Modern "art" isn't created by artists. It's created by people who don't know how to create art

Being able to do what modern art does (simplicity while also looking balanced and consistent with no incongruities) is difficult and definitely requires an artist's eye. You would have to try it and see how hard it actually is to really realize it.

Also most modern artists are talented in "real" art but still create it. Like how Disney animators could draw a realistic mouse.

But you and everyone else who has never thought about the subject can think "it isn't a PICTURE of a THING so it SUCKS and is POINTLESS" and leave it at that. No skin off anyone's ass

>>4413944
>To be able to evoke emotion with extreme simplicity is a special type of art when virtually all else involves the opposite.
Dude I know how to evoke emotions.
Walk up to people, stick two fingers down your throat and throw up in front of them.
That evokes emotions without creating anything at all truly the pinnacle of modern art.

>Modern "art" isn't created by artists. It's created by people who don't know how to create art
Pretentious "King with no clothes bullshit"
The real art would impress anyone at the first glance.
You see this shit? THIS IS THE REAL ART, anybody would lose their shit in awe of this painting, this is the real emotion, the real fucking stuff.

If an ignorant caveman found this picture on the floor he would lose his shit and keep it as a treasure. Your picture is garbage, if you didn't tell me that it's ""art"" i would think it's a dirty rag.

>>4414117
based and artpilled

Modernshart BTFO

>>4414117
so
>more complex art exists so less complex art is shit
again

py attempt at modern art right now or you're a smoothbrain faggot

make something abstract at least as appealing as >>4413944

you can even just use a dirty rag for it, by your own admission

>>4414206
Would a caveman, or an ancient Greek look at your picture and say "Damn this is good I'm gonna keep it" ?
Would a person who never heard about modern art appreciate it?
If not then it's not real art.
I believe that art is universal and the real art would impress anybody, me, a caveman, or a fucking space alien would look at it and admire.

With your picture nobody would know that it's an art if they weren't told it is.

>>4414206
looks like something my grandma would hang on her fridge

>>4414206
>as appealing as >>4413944
Dude if it was appealing i'd not call it a dirty rag.

>>4414232
>defining the value of all art by what you personally assume a caveman or roman or alien might possibly think about the art
this is so stupid I can't even smugpost

>>4414269
>>4414255
If you think it's on the level of a dirty rag make something abstract and even slightly better

literally I'm not trying to gotcha by pywing

people who hate modern art haven't thought about it past the basic "it's not a depiction of a material thing+it's just colors so it can't have value". let alone attempting to create something abstract and aesthetically half decent.

if you tried to make something even on the low tier that >>4413944 is you would realize how it isn't just smearing colors

But you wont ever try and will be satisfied feeling superior without ever actually thinking

Also samefag

another thread brought to you by underageb& who thinks they have 'uncovered' the art world. we have never had a thread like this before, ever.

>>4414485
>Boo hoo the bad incels don't follow my cult they must be Trump racists

Your fake art is shit and everybody knows that.

>>4412744
>the name of the piece or knowledge of the artist can supplement the work itself.
wrong
WRONG
show dont tell, even if you are not an "artist" or better to say a painter, it will be demanded from you to make a design that can support itself without any context, the essays are just for dessert, or if you design architecture you give context to the place you are designing in
if a piece of work needs some poetry to explain and support it, its utter garbage and a crime against art supplies and canvas
modern "artist" are just hacks and chinese money laundering machines

>>4413297
Gosh idk anything about this guy but i want to beat him up

>>4411905
do u sell it? i wanna buy

>>4415120
yeah I'll give you a deal since your a cool guy its only 240k for you.

>>4414935
I'd say most art, not just abstract, is supplemented by it's title

>>4413297
He needs a stencil too.

>>4413107
Barnett Newman I think

>>4413381
It's Bansky. He has the subtlety of a mack truck and the originality of hollywood.

>>4414232
This post is correct and >>4414470
getting stroppy shows the truth perfectly.

>>4411905
That's not "modern." That's postmodern. Specifically, abstract expressionism or one of its subdivisions.

That crap came about because the CIA was (secretly) funding the hell out of it to make the art world think the Socialist Realism of the Russkies was quaint and passe. They set up left-wing foundations whose critics, patrons, and galleries didn't even know the CIA was backing them, and which heavily promoted abstract expressionism as the new awesome American art movement.

One of the most influential of these critics was the radical Clement Greenberg, who insisted that "real" art must not have any meaning, no context, must not evoke any memories or emotions or anything outside of its own canvas. Instead, it had to be a pure aesthetic experience in and of itself. Greenberg is the one who pushed guys like Pollock and Rothko to the forefront. It got to the point where, if you WEREN'T painting the way he wanted, you had no chance of getting into an important gallery.

MoMA was a big part of this, too. Funded heavily by wealthy people tied to the CIA (and its entire board was tied to either CIA or State during this time), they set up dozens of expensive exhibitions across Europe to bombard the art world with the idea that THIS was the good stuff. And it worked.

Not saying there's nothing good about it. Lots of it is indeed aesthetically pleasing. But a lot of it is just shit artificially backed by money and politics, which never would have seen the light of day otherwise.

It's a fascinating chapter in both art history and political history, and lots of fun to read about since it was declassified in 1995. So many characters, so much confrontation and counterculture and irony. Gotta love it.

>>4418026
Where can I read more about this?

>>4413863
>made to draw focus and evoke emotion and atmosphere using only simple shapes and colors

what a load of fucking garbage

>>4414232
based and redpilled artist. i cant express how much I agree with you anon!

>>4418779
Google it, there's plenty online.

>>4418894
Your posts are peak amawu. Pls take a art history class and stop being so ignorant and stupid.

>>4414232
>art is as good as the lowest imaginable common denominator determines it is
sorry but that's just not how quality works, bub.
sometimes a contextualized abstracted piece that doesn't flaunt technical skill can mean more to someone (and be more cleverly crafted) than a masterfully rendered 100% accurate figure drawing, that's just how it is.

>>4420420
what the fuck does amawu mean

>>4414872
Never mentioned Cheeto man. Game over

>>4420430
We heard that story already, yeah yeah only the fools can't see how meaningful and important all that shit is.
>shit isn't bad, you're just not intelligent enough to appreciate the intricacies of fecal flavor

>>4418026
I too can feel the strong ideological connection between this modern/post modern art and the current progressive views. It in is strongly anti-meritocracy, anti beauty, anti standards, and pro equality of outcome.

Remember the fat, ugly, disgusting feminists protesting the beauty standards? They believe they are entitled to be appreciated as they are, sweaty, stinky with all their disgusting fat rolls on display, and they feel oppressed by the idea of keeping yourself in shape, no, it's you who are supposed to lower the standards. They identify as beautiful so now they are.

This entire culture, the very school of thought starts with modern art.
>no this isn't a piece of shit this is my personal self expression it's art
So they bash that idea that everything is valuable without any effort or quality into thee people's heads, everyone can be an artist, any piece of their shit is an art and basically modern art was the first steps towards the cultural marxism.
The march through institution started with the culture. They had to change the people's values and the ideas on what's important and what not.
>unique individuality is good
>being actually good is bad

>>4414232
>I only trust mentally deficient people's opinions on art
Whoa........ epic argument... bro...

>>4421879
>>4414470
>>4420430
>the currently accepted public opinion is the measure of intellect and culture.

Oh pardon my reference to the dumb and uneducated ancient greeks, fuck those unwashed savages right, they didn't even study the gender studies, of course they were just dumber than us, they only knew like 3 or 4 genders and not 37.

Let me rephrase.
In future (future is not past so it's better and more intelligent right) the archaeologists would discover these paintings
>>4414206
>>4413944
>>4413863
>>4413803
>>4412744
in the ruins of Louvre burned down by the migrants and they would think "this must be a rag they used to clean the brush while they worked on timeless masterpieces like >>4414117 >>4414232 >>4413229.
Because the second group is an OBVIOUS cultural accomplisment, the result of thousands of years of deevelopment and new masters picking up where the old masters left and refining it for generations. Anybody could see it's of value and effort.
The first group is just a contrarian artsy-fartsy ((((self expression))))
>REEEEEEEE YOU JUST CAN'T SEE MY DEEP MEANING

>>4411979
FPBP

>>4421923
>>4413229
Is def no a master piece it looks nice but the style is over used

>>4413856

Looks like a weirdo lo fi pop bandcamp cassette cover, i dig it

>>4420352
I've found an article by The Independent that does not cite it's sources and a bunch of articles that link to The Independent. Sounds like bullshit.

>>4412444
Impressive, would use to help spice up the home...

>>4420433
Weeb who hates art but likes anime "art" tho.

>>4422990
This might be a better starting point:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DnYRBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&ots=PghScUIGbT&sig=oVaqLpqVHZMmVbwxVqYWO_1dEUY#v=onepage&q&f=false
or the first edition in PDF at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4b98/361923a869d1f10fa3db6be7e51dbb7bd69d.pdf

also the CIA's own review of it at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no1/article08.html

That should get you started. There's interviews online with people at CIA who worked on it, and other writing out there. Have fun!

>>4420430
Every time someone claims they like modern art they say "I like this modern artist because ___" and their reason usually translates as "I am very smart". I cannot fathom looking at a scribbly line on a canvas and thinking anything but "I want my money back". I'm not paying the ticket to a concert to see the orchestra tuning their fucking instruments, all because a bunch of rich faggots who sucked a few cocks want to get free money while calling themselves artists. Art is already shit enough without money laundering and people shitting on canvases to make a trendy statement people pretend to give a fuck about.

>>4411905
why is so much modern art give feelings of existentional dread? life can be an amazing thing so long as you know where to look.
its like half of these artists want to kill themselves which imo, is kind of pathetic.

>>4411905
>>4412444
>>4413803
>>4413881
>>4414206

I actually kind of like these.

>>4421923
>>defining the value of all art by what you personally assume a caveman or roman or alien might possibly think about the art

>>4427821
This is ugly and thus worthless, but some modern artist didn't renounce beauty and made worthwhile art, pic related.

>>4412444
pixel perfect

>>4418026
>because the CIA

>>4418026
>it had to be a pure aesthetic experience in and of itself. Greenberg is the one who pushed guys like Pollock and Rothko to the forefront
And it was a good thing. Pollock and Rothko's art is much better than, say, Picasso's

>>4427983

Umm no? Wtf are you smoking? What is better? No?

Picasso's art has far more thought put into it, it's analytical, thus has more value.

Also aboriginals in this thread that for some reason think that academic art, photorealism is end all be all, we know you're full of shit and never been to an art school.

And no, your're wrong. Great art isnt gonna impress everyone and be readable to everyone. There are many things even besides art that can be appreciated by enthusiasts and those that understand the style.

It's also subjective and people like different things. That's why certain things have been more or less popular over time.

If you dont have any idea why Neoplasticism, Mondrian's art is considered art and why it was popular, you should really excuse yourself from this discussion.

>>4428047
>Umm no? Wtf are you smoking? What is better? No?
You have to go back.

>>4412446
I thought you were calling this painting by Alberto Giacometti bad for a moment and I was about to chimp out

>>4411905
yo anon wtf?

>>4418026
>-berg
Oy...

>>4411905
Hate threads are gay.

How do modern/postmodern/etc artists make a living doing this? Do people actually pay them to do it? Serious question.

>>4418026
Wow. Not sure where to begin with this post. I don't usually visit this board (I'm from /lit/). You're namedropping Clement Greenberg like your revealing some hidden knowledge. Are most people on the art board really not aware of him? Have you read him? Because Greenberg was a marxist and even ends the essay that you're obliquely referring to with a Marx quote. Your summary of his theory is reductive to the point of being inaccurate.None of what I'm saying here is intended to contradict your point about the CIA's relationship with abstract expressionism. But I want to underscore that that relationship, if anything, demonstrates the capacity of capitalist society to subsume anything and everything into its ideological narrative, even radical art informed by politically radical aesthetic theory. This doesn't reflect poorly on the art. It's the same reason we have "fight the system" movies on Netflix. It's also worth pointing out that there was lots of pioneering abstract art produced in the Soviet Union decades before the advent of abstract expressionism. So, your narrative that abstract art has only entered the art canon because it was legitimized by Greenberg and funded by the CIA is ridiculous. Sure, the CIA seized an opportunity to contrast artists like Pollock with the (then stifled) Socialist Realist art of the Soviet Union, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill with respect to the lasting impact this had on the history of art. It's funny how people are willing to buy into the "individual genius" narrative with the old masters but go full tin foil hat when it comes to abstract art. It's remarkable that it still provokes such negative reactions as this decades after the dust has settled.

>>4411905
Daily reminder that if you're talking about it it's not bad art

Bad art is NEITHER the good stuff, OR the stuff so intentionally or accidentally notable in its anti-goodness that you feel compelled to discuss it.

It's the stuff that you can't be assed to give a shit about. The stuff that's neither here, nor there, that neither speaks to the soul, nor rouses it to anger.

In short, BAD art is stuff here, on /ic/. Stuff beneath discussion.

>>4434500
But you're discussing it and disparaging it.

So by your standards it's not bad.

>>4434666
Curse you metacommentary and your inability to not be recursiveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...!

>>4433615
>Because Greenberg was a marxist
No fucking shit. He had no idea. None of them did. If not for the gummint funding, they'd have been obscure voices lost in the ephemera of time, instead of the proud arbiters of all that is Western Contemporary Art they became. If not for the backing they never knew of, Greenberg and his ilk would have had zero influence.

Which means the abstract weird shit that nobody got and nobody gets would never have been that big a deal, either.

>the year 20XX
>still discussing what is real art and what isnt
i know why i rarely frequent this board

>>4413929
true

>>4413803
I found a bugman

>>4411905
I'll show you an ugly one

>>4433536
All the ones I've come across get money from local councils, and/or work as teachers in some capacity. So none of their 'work' is bought by Joe Public, but is selected by other SJW types that think large pieces of metal shaped in a factory to the 'artist's design is ~art.

sploosh splash lol

>>4433536
Rich patrons, investors. Just got to be one of the artists they hear each other talking about and see each other buying.

>>4414117
B A S E D

>>4421923
I agree with you that art should not require an intellectual explanation alongside the actual piece in order to give it value, but plenty of modern art achieves that. You're just fixated on "concept art" like trannies shitting onto canvases in a museum