/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

The purpose of art is to better mankind through catharsis and/or emotions. Those works become powerful through their point.

healthy artists who express the ugly in the human race, do it in a sublime way.
The subjectis horrendious, disgusting and yet... you cannot help but marvel at the mastery it took to depict it. There's a sort of grace in it.


A deviant will just shit his dark soul onto a canvas and expect you to praise him for it.
This is the difference between, let's say... a porn movie and a rape scene in an artistic movie.

>>4578352
For cooming to.

>>4578352
drawing cunny

>>4578352
To be beautiful.
Rarely the purpose is to express some other emotion, but that has a singular purpose, such as a Crucifixion scene for a Church altar.

>>4578352
Patreonbucks

Art can be used to effect change, social and individual
>>4578373
What about art that's not beautiful?

>>4578352
Art can be used to effect change, social and individual
>>4578373
What about art that's not beautiful?

>>4578352
>all those pleb answers
its to communicate OP

>>4578352
Nothing. It's a mistake in human program so to speak.

>>4578352
idk man
>>>>/test

Is the purpose of our art to describe reality as faithfully as possible, like a photograph? I personally can find line art to be more intriguing and enjoy looking at it more.

To me it's amazing how Kim Jung Gi creates 3D feeling and the impression that you are looking at a specific material just by using lines, without colors or shadows or anything, just lines. His videos where he signs books with just a marker are incredible. It's like he's teaching you how your brain works.

Something to wank to

The meaning of "art" is subjective. Picasso cubism era was ugly as shit and oozes low effort, but historically it had a purpose and still is art.
So, art can be ugly.

for me art is selling overpriced commissions.

>>4579212
warhol, koons: nodding

>>4579212

>paypal blocking random accounts

you better withdraw that money righ now my nigga

>>4578352
the purpose of art is to convey SOUL

>>4578352
whatever you want it to be baby

>>4578352
To expand the common knowledge of mankind.

Eg. if the Impressionists didn't happen, we all would now perceive color differently.

>>4578352
to keep you from committing suicide

>>4579511
Really? Fuck art then

>>4579500
how do you mean? there are many people who don't know anything about them at all.

>>4578352
To give people with talent the feel to be superior to you, while those without talent feel stupid

>>4578352
It's there to remind humans that there exists something that is greater than them.

>>4578352
Art is a flex
> Why does an artist paint pictures, write symphonies, carve statues, tell stories? Is it because he finds joy and spiritual release in the mere doing of these things? Probably; but this is not the whole story. Is it because he makes his living after this fashion? No doubt; but there is still more to it than this.
> Here is the third reason. It is a very significant reason, though it is generally disregarded. The artist persists in being an artist because he revels in the feeling that he may affect or influence people by his work. He does not demand approbation, but he does demand notice and response. The thought that he may through his work influence people and strike past their defenses to their secret emotions gives him a gratifying sense of power.

Also, coom.

>>4579497
Wrong.

>>4580738
More like a cope. No one would pursue art seriously if they were content with themselves

>>4578352
communication of information, ideas, and feelings

>>4578352
Just one of the many ways we try to justify our limited existence

imo art is generally communicated as being the essence of two concepts—visual expression of ideas, or visual expression of the soul.

>>4578352
a bottle of vodka for the death sentenced prisoner

>>4578352
the goal of art is to coom

>>4578352
Much like writing it is the manifestation of consciousness, thoughts, ideas and story
In order to make art, you must be human and is solely for humans to admire. A mirror to the soul.
Regardless of how garbage, shit, amazing or great it is, only humans are capable of communicating ideals, an oddity of evolution of the brain, something that only has meaning because we give it meaning, something that has no value yet can mean everything to us

>>4578352
Considering the following...
>The purpose of art is delectation - Nicolas Poussin
>Aesthetic delectation is the danger to be avoided - Marcel Duchamp
... the purpose of life is: Reaching Heaven through violence.

>>4580738
>2nd paragraph describing every 4chan poster
I knew it, we all were art all along

>>4579494
Based cave painter

>>4578352
Art reflects life. To understand the purpose of art you need to understand the purpose of life and the purpose of life is to coom therefore the purpose of art must also be to coom.
I coom therefore I am.

>>4579494
blog + brush set files?

>>4581769
the purpose of cooming is procreation of life itself so I guess you are right

>>4579497
>stands upright and walks regularly
kek this is hilarious

>>4578352
The purpose of art is to touch other people's lives, and thus, become immortal yourself

>>4581774
cross big river towards mountain. when go by three lakes, see big rocks. behind big big rock in rock room be Grugblog. take water buffalo testicle and tie onto stick with tendon. this is Grugbrush.

>>4578352
to coom

>>4579497
Thiccc

>>4581860
hehehe

>>4578352
Art is the ultimate masturbatory gesture of human civilization

>>4581860
>>4579494
kek. anyone know how big is the actuall wall painting?

>>4583115
I think there's even a 3d view of those caves, search that

>>4578352
to flex on normies

>>4583115
Pretty big, the lions are about life-sized.

>>4578352
if you have ascended, to make immortal the perfect form of the human body and the brain's imagination
otherwise money, and lots of it
even the greats were commissioned artists

>>4583135
Meanwhile on /ic/, in the draw her in your style thread >>4580660 kek

>>4578549
>>4580995
>>4581407
This. You're basically opening yourself up to the world and exposing what's really going on inside your brain. It's an intimate form of sharing that art provides. (but for some people, myself included, the thought of other people judging this intimate exchange becomes too much so you subconsciously decide not to draw despite having the technical skill to make something.)

>>4578352
The purpose of art is to be a nice pasttime for humans. Call it distraction, therapy, if you want.

>>4586275
this >>4586263

>>4578352
Connecting with the realm of pure forms and bringing humanity closer to Demiurg.

There is none, all art is just veiled selfishness. Even artists who spend their time making art that serves a social purpose would be more helpful if they devoted that time to practical applications of humanitarianism. You have 30 hours to paint a picture of a starving child? What if you spent that 30 hours at a soup kitchen actually feeding a few hundred of them?

Not saying there is anything wrong with selfishness, but there is a stunning lack of awareness among artists. Trying to assign deep meaning to art is why so many artists are so self-entitled and fragile these days.

>>4579497
I thought they would just keep bouncing.

>>4587060
this, people hiring artistic skills are retarded and the industry shouldn't exist

>>4587060
So enjoyment in life is not a value? Art obviously gives people "something".

Fuck you and your soup kitchens. My art is selfish, and that's its purpose. It gives me and others pleasure.

>>4587060
you can spend 3 hours drawing, sell it for 90 bucks and hire people to do the humanitarian work for 10$/hr for 9 hours, ever thought about that pussyboy?

>>4578352
Shut the fuck up you pseud, pic related

>>4587060
30 hours in a soup kitchen only can go so far; a work of art can reach an unlimited amount of people.

>>4590896
>a work of art can reach an unlimited amount of people.
Most likely not unless it's fanart or coom and has absolutely nothing new or genuine to say.

>>4590918
soup kitchen fills the stomach while coom art fills the soul my dear

>>4578352
Expression

>>4578352
to make people coom

>>4587060
>>4587235
Unironically based and correct
'Le industry' should die and never come back

>>4583051
To add on to this, art is the ultimate compensatory gesture for the feeling of impotence. The only other gesture akin to it is to produce a child that you can shape to your whims.

>>4587060
What if i draw shota and that shota drawing keeps a real pedo away from children?

>>4578352
Eyecandy. To be beautiful. To provoke the viewer's visual joy and sometimes escapism from this shit boring reality.

Whoever tries to use it as a form of social activism and marxist crap is basically prostituting and raping art for their own personal benefits, or to archieve something that will benefit them and others a selfish act.

Feel anyway you want about RAW, he is one side of the coin, but he still has the best answer for the purpose of art.

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

>>4594042
Does he mean like basically propaganda?

>>4583134
>>4579494
The shading on those is skilled af. I was told cavemen was /beg/ tier those are way too good.

To document humanity's demise for future alien civilisations.

>>4594253
We got soul somehow
Historic art isnt /beg/ tier at all open ur eyes. They were painting with egg protein and squid ink and shit it takes a lot of ingenuity

/ic/

>>4578352
To depict things

>>4594258
that can be done without art tho

>>4578352
Eye candy, messing around and scamming the rich.

To distract yourself from the world

>>4596453
Scamming the rich? You mean money laundering and tax scamming BY the rich

>>4580437
How come people of one nation share the same sense of humor? A similar temperament?
How come we all respond to epic stories the same way - European children pretend-play as knights, Japanese children as Samurai, but it's the same idea. How come we all share the same sense of good and evil?

The society, any society, is not just a collection of individuals, it's also its own organism, with its collective mind, collective knowledge, collective value systems. There are things YOU know, and there are things the SOCIETY knows.
The society of early 19th century knew that the only acceptable way to paint is like Raphael - a realistic, dry, academic approach. The society of 21st century knows that there's a shitload of ways to paint and that color is subjective, and that it should be a direct emotional response to what we see.
Had impressionism not happened, maybe we'd today still perceive color only for its realistic properties.

Good art improves and educates society. Expands its horizon. Turns chaos into order. Nurtures the human spirit and connects it to the realm of ideas yet unexplored, to the transcendent, to the absolute truth.

>>4599634
More examples because I just love writing about this shit

>example 2
Art nuveau replaces classicism, classicism replaces baroque, baroque replaces renaissance and so on.
One is a response to the other, and always a direct opposite of it - in terms of values, philosophy and perception.
How could one deny the existence of society's collective mind and experience? It wasn't individuals who got tired of the previous era, individuals don't live long enough for that.
>example 3
Society as a collective mind is also seen in Eastern / Western Europe.
Western Europe pushes socialism, because they don't have a collective experience with tyrany. The Slavs in the East enjoyed communism to its fullest, with political prisoners, censorship, secret police et cetera, that's why they're cautious and vigilant, including their children who were born into democracy.

>>4583881
>This. You're basically opening yourself up to the world and exposing what's really going on inside your brain. It's an intimate form of sharing that art provides.
Ideally yes
In practice it's just insincere marketing shit + trending entertainment characters / interior decor / mechanically copying a photo following a step-by-step technique to be a Sargent lookalike with no thought underneath

replies like these are why this board is worth visiting

For war propaganda and brainwashing.

>>4599634
>How come we all share the same sense of good and evil?
If this was true people wouldn't argue about what's right and wrong. For example, i think that socialized healthcare is evil, and most people disagree with that, so there's that.

>The society, any society, is not just a collection of individuals, it's also its own organism, with its collective mind, collective knowledge, collective value systems. There are things YOU know, and there are things the SOCIETY knows.
No. "Society" is not a thinking entity, It doesn't exist. It's all of us. Society doesn't have a collective brain any more than It has a collective stomach. This is pretty obvious.

>>4599638
>Art nuveau replaces classicism, classicism replaces baroque, baroque replaces renaissance and so on.
Not quite. "Classicism" as a philosophy was present in the art world as a major influence in all of the eras you listed, leading up to Art Nouveau. "Classicism" wasn't a school or period of art, unless you're talking about Neo-Classicism. Baroque also didn't replace Renaissance, it replaced Mannerism, which evolved out of Renaissance art. There's a flow to the history art, while there are break points like Mannerism, or Baroque, there are also threads and themes that carry from one era to the next. It's extremely simplistic and somewhat inaccurate to say each are was a polar opposite to the era that preceded it.

>It wasn't individuals who got tired of the previous era, individuals don't live long enough for that.
Yet, there were individual artists who shifted the entire playing field - look at Caravaggio for a good example of that. His impact in kick starting the Baroque movement is why we know his name, and study his work.
>Western Europe pushes socialism, because they don't have a collective experience with tyrany.
Wonderfully naive, I guess you missed the French Revolution?

>>4599634
>The society of early 19th century knew that the only acceptable way to paint is like Raphael - a realistic, dry, academic approach.
Laughably untrue, and shows a distinct lack of knowledge of that era in art. There were multiple schools of art in the 1800s that worked in different aesthetics and philosophies. The Romantic movement started in the late 1700s, and their aesthetics and sensibilities completely prove your statement false. The art world in general at the start of the 1800's was completely rejecting Neo-classicism and mannerism, not thinking it was the only acceptable way to paint. Have you ever read any art history books on the era? Or taken an art history course on the era? I doubt it, if that's your take on it.

jesus, what even is this wall of text?
>>4600438
>>4599634
>>4600417
>>4599638

>>4600450
Your laziness isn't our problem. If you can't read more than a single sentence without whining, try a furry porn thread.

>>4603487

>>4578352
to coom

>>4578373
>rarely the purpose is to express some other emotion
beauty isn't an emotion retard, and you must be autistic if you can't find more than 1 emotion in any piece of art

>>4579497
>that nigger and a kike at the front
lol, this need to be shopped.

>>4603574
Art that is multidimensional? Never!

>>4600383
Aah yes, moral relativism, my old friend.
You know it's right to want people who deserve it to be happy, healthy and to lead fulfilling lives.
The lefties want the same thing, the two just argue about which method of achieving this common goal is more efficient, no?

As for the other statement, you're right, but only because you're talking from a literal standpoint. There's also a metaphorical one.
Of course society doesn't have its own brain, but it acts as if it had.
Canadians all share a lot of things, not just a living space. Japanese all share a lot of things too.
It's in the way children of a culture are brought up, it's in the architecture surrounding them that subtly influences their sense of value and beauty. It's in the climate, the lifestyle, the way their government leads the state. The society is soaked with it like a sponge. And "IT" is different for each distinct group of people.

>>4600438
>the only acceptable way to paint
>that worked in different aesthetics and philosophies
Your post talks about WHAT they painted - natural motifs, landscapes, muted, low key color palettes et cetera.
My post talked about HOW they painted - soft, sfumato-like blending, great emphasis on depth and perspective and a very realistic approach to figure painting.
Just compare the similarities between these two paintings of Delacroix & Raphael, almost 400 years apart. The subject is different. The philosophy is different. But the painting is almost identical.

Then compare it to Impressionists or even Pre-raphaelites, who even stated their intention in their name.

>>4579212
Problem with this is that drawing takes time, and you might as well be working on a regular job.

>>4604493
>the two just argue about which method of achieving this common goal is more efficient, no?
not really, no. And there's more to moral views than "left vs right". There are, for example, people in the middle east who believe that what's right is doing whatever brings the most glory to their creator. There are people like that in America, too.

some practical uses of art ITT >>4603876

>>4604514
You're mixing morals with value systems

>>4604920
Same thing really

>>4604967
no

>>4578352

Copypasting my question here:

>>4606484


Does art need to tell a story in order to be considered art?
Or in other words can only fanart be considered art?

Something that dawned on me. Every browse through deviantart or instagram and check through the original art sections? Like say go browse through fantasy art and find a really well done illustration of a dragon. No particular dragon from any story, just a fantasy dragon. It's by all counts technically sound, but you don't really CARE about it? Like you would if you knew the dragon from some story.

I'm making this thread because I've been struggling to find any motivation to make original art, because I may come up with a really cool idea for a piece, but without any sort of story to attach me to the subjects I don't really care about them. It's the reason why fanart is so popular compared to original art. People know the characters so they find emotional resonance with the piece. But even as an artist, I find I can't really draw anything but fanart anymore. It's not just that, but when making original fantasy art, you're drawing characters in a world that hasn't been realized at all. Say I wanna draw a bunch of dwarves fighting a cave troll. Who are these dwarves? What is their culture like? Why are they fighting this troll? Where'd the troll come from? Etc., without a fully realized world to back up the subjects I'm drawing I find it so much harder to draw anything because all these questions race through my head. It has no CONTEXT I guess is what I mean.

It bothers me because I really don't think art should have to rely on having a story one is already familiar with to back it up, because then I'm saying art can't stand on it's own and literally only fucking fanart has any value.

Pic related. Really good piece of art skillwise, but I don't really feel any care for it. Maybe it's just me.

>>4606513

Lolwut the fuck actually I recognize that pose.

>>4604995
Yep

>>4578352 (OP)

Copypasting my question here:

>>4606484


Does art need to tell a story in order to be considered art?
Or in other words can only fanart be considered art?

Something that dawned on me. Every browse through deviantart or instagram and check through the original art sections? Like say go browse through fantasy art and find a really well done illustration of a dragon. No particular dragon from any story, just a fantasy dragon. It's by all counts technically sound, but you don't really CARE about it? Like you would if you knew the dragon from some story.

I'm making this thread because I've been struggling to find any motivation to make original art, because I may come up with a really cool idea for a piece, but without any sort of story to attach me to the subjects I don't really care about them. It's the reason why fanart is so popular compared to original art. People know the characters so they find emotional resonance with the piece. But even as an artist, I find I can't really draw anything but fanart anymore. It's not just that, but when making original fantasy art, you're drawing characters in a world that hasn't been realized at all. Say I wanna draw a bunch of dwarves fighting a cave troll. Who are these dwarves? What is their culture like? Why are they fighting this troll? Where'd the troll come from? Etc., without a fully realized world to back up the subjects I'm drawing I find it so much harder to draw anything because all these questions race through my head. It has no CONTEXT I guess is what I mean.

It bothers me because I really don't think art should have to rely on having a story one is already familiar with to back it up, because then I'm saying art can't stand on it's own and literally only fucking fanart has any value.

Pic related. Really good piece of art skillwise, but I don't really feel any care for it. Maybe it's just me.

>>4606547
You can create your own story telling in illustration without it being fanart you dumb fuck

>>4606547
I guess this is a child of commercial art waking up - you realize that everything is a trope, that every concept has been done before in some kind of form, and realize that you only need to know that archetype (e.g. the concept of "elf" for your attached image).

It's like that for a lot of pictures in museums as well, where you often need historical context (provided by wall texts, catalogues, tour guides) to get the most out of the art. As the anon above said, pieces are able to stand on their own if they're well done (full scene vs. a portrait), and if it's something that hasn't been done by everyone in the nth variation. But that's just often what art is - "just a landscape" or "just a picture of someone". It still manages to fulfill the purpose of making the commissioners happy somehow. Not every artwork has to have maximum universal appeal.

>>4578352
To express truth and beauty. To explore the unknown and expand the collective consciousness. Like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods and attempting to return it to man as intact as possible.

In the modern era the artist acts as the shaman in a lot of ways. Holding peoples hands and taking them through other realms and experiences in order to further expand their understanding of themselves and of other people.

Lastly to provide a window into the divine so that man is forever reminded that there is something greater than himself to live in awe of. Having a relationship with this will always humble and inspire us.

>>4606555

(checked)

See that (despite being furshit) actually tells a story on it's own, while leaving enough up to interpretation to allow one's own imagination to attempt to fill in the blanks of missing context, while simultaneously making the viewer feel emotion with what's happening. The framing, the expressions, the poses, the light centring on the maid/princess struck by an arrow. This feels like a snapshot from a greater narrative.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe I don't need to make fucking fanart afterall.

>>4606555
>>4606568
>>4606547


So how about this one then? It similarily depicts a dramatic scene, yet I don't feel the same emotional resonance nor igniting of my imagination. It's just, oh a knight fighting a dragon in some city street. What's different between the two?

>>4606591
In the other one you see a lot of human faces (i know they're animals but you get my point) displaying emotions that we can relate to. That's my best guess

>>4606591
The shot in the dragon piece is from behind him and it feels very disconnected. In that furry one you're seeing faces, there's an emotional scene going on which is framed by the light and characters, and the shot is a little closer and more personal, like you're walking up on that scene. In the knight v dragon one it just looks like someone dropped their GoPro on the ground.

>>4578411
>change etc
pic related >>4607626

>>4578352
the purpose is to indoctrinate the public for those in positions of authority

>>4606591
Because, in your terms, art is driven by story, and the story in the pic you posted is a boring as fuck "man fights dragon" as opposed to the furry assassination which is genuinely intriguing.

To your original point, that art is driven by story, this is wrong. Art is the distillation of the thing we find valuable in stories. The unique power of visual art is to heighten the conception of that distilled thing through the medium and return it onto the viewer's consciousness more directly and violently. It's strange that you have never experienced this, and I would imagine you have severe autism (srsly).

to cope

to hope

Its a statement made against an endless, uncaring void that even if for a brief moment, you existed

>>4612815
those hands be gay af my nugga

>>4612815
this makes me look at ffx in a different light

to mope

>>4578352
Occupy & Stimulate

>>4578355
>healthy artist
>schiele

pick one

>>4616310
Pretty sure anon was referring to Schiele with the part about deviants

>>4578352
to create a following and cry on twitter instead of fostering the artists you inspire

>>4578352
to create juicy drama!

As an autist who tries do darw and do music.. believe me:
Sometimes its just easier to communicate through art
or at least to make ppl really listen to you
Through all the hypocrisy and nonsense