/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6383282
inb4: coping chuds

>>6383282
i suggest books by Tom Wolfe
his one on architecture is rather amusing.
and no its not le "Art is money laundering" or other generic explanations he gives a pretty good overview and hams it up so its not drying paint levels boring. becuase how we got to this point wasn't some spontaneous shift in 1960, the groundwork was being layed for decades if not centuries

>>6383282
The type of art you posted is artifice, digitally created, and often vapid in content.
Not that I'm defending fine art grifters, but at least most create actual OBJECTS that attract money launderers—I mean collectors—even if those objects might be literal shit.
To me the best stuff is traditionally drawn art and illustration. Also art with some substance behind it beyond just vapid video game and fan art. Hell, Robert Crumb bought a chateau in France with his sketchbooks.

>>6383282
A good, beautiful oil painting will sell for decent money no matter what and even good money if you get more known and have regular buyers. The stuff that sells for millions is a little bit like comparing good indie musicians to super stars backed and cranked out by a big industry. People like Twombly are basically the McDonald's of art, you will never make the same money with your gourmet restaurant. The only ridiculous thing is that all those fast food chain artists are marketed as avant garde, foodie and as "smarter" brands, because the customer base consists not of common people, but super rich people like Hollywood celebrities. It's just another Lambo hanging on their wall as a conversation piece. Don't get upset because of that, it's part of the marketing. It's the American way of art. It doesn't really affect the market that much, there will be still the dentist out there who will buy a piece of art for a couple of thousands.

I'm talking for example like these:
>https://luxurylaunches.com/auctions/9-pieces-of-art-ridiculously-sold-for-millions.php
Like what, these are all money launders? That can't be true.

Ever heard The Emperor's New Clothes OP?

>>6383306
I had a drawing teacher (who could draw the human figure well) who loved Rothko's paintings. He saw his work in person at the Rothko Chapel in Houston and described it as a zen-like spiritual experience.
Keep in mind these are large paintings with huge fields of color. Actual objects rather than digital files on a computer like the one in OP.

>>6383282
>>6383306
physical artwork is like an investment. Its value is dependent on the demand. The demand in this case is a small group of extremely wealthy people/organizations. 28m to us seems like a lot but to these guys it's like pocket change. A genuine Rembrandt was sold for 200m. A lot of money laundering occurs when the artwork sold is by some unknown artist with no cultural or historical impact.

Well, guess I'll go back to browse my eye candies then.
Still not entirely sure why ultra rich drop mils on irl ms paints as investments, guess I'll check out that book recommened later.

>>6383331
I wonder if there is a placebo effect here. If the Rothko was just sitting among a bunch of painted canvases(like machine pre-painted for some purpose) in a store room, one might think the paint/printer simply had an error. Put it in a renowned gallery, meme his name into legend status, Tell people they might have a spiritual experience looking at it... and baby, you got a stew going.

>>6383364
I would look at AI slop over modern "art" too.

>>6383364
Eye candy is all it is and nothing more. It's not even particularly evocative eye candy (like the attached), it's Thomas Kinkade without an object to even sell.
The reason /ic/ is so shook by AI is because too many value shit like this. Their taste never evolved beyond "muh skills & digital rendering."
You're probably trolling with AI art, I know, but it makes little difference. Most actual art on Artstation is equally vapid.

>>6383364
Eye candy is all it is and nothing more. It's not even particularly evocative eye candy (like the attached), it's Thomas Kinkade without an object to even sell.
The reason /ic/ is so shook by AI is because too many value shit like you're posting. Their taste never evolved beyond "muh skills & digital rendering."
You're probably trolling with AI, I know, but it makes little difference. Most actual art on Artstation is equally vapid.

>>6383282
this looks like generic concept art photobash
and you answered it yourself pinterest and artstation is full of it
its dime a dozen

>>6383282
>https://vimeo.com/419591120
if only you knew how bad things really are

>>6383364
just say you like kitsch

>>6383404
He's not asking why those are so cheap.
He's asking why modern "arts" are so expensive.

>>6383401
Normies like eye candies because they can imagine themselves escaping there from daily drudgeries.
The color barf you posted on the otherhand, people that can decipher what it's about won't need it to tell them. NPCs that don't see what's wrong irl also won't see anything other than color barf.

>>6383331
>Rothko
You post a russian jew who paints squares and expect me to believe there is something to his success and recognition other than nepotism of the tribe.
>>6383306
It can be, and also networking/gathering of rich people.
>I have this thing I'm in your clique.

>>6383401
ugly

>>6383282
Imagine thinking the art sells because it's good, and not because it's being used for money laundering.

>>6384469
Maybe or maybe not. People love abstract art for different reason and they project their feeling on the art.
Anime for example is a kind of abstract art. People love it for the effort the artists put on it to make them happy, people hate it because their life are sad and they hate happy thing. People accuse it as CP because they are projecting their pedophile...

>>6384517
>Anime is abstract art
No, its cute teen/young adults made in appealing animation and written in stories that can have abstract contexts, but most of the time all those abstract ideas just end us as "Fantasy", but with new creative ideas. Heck, most popular animes aren't even abstract, just either regular stories made with creative premises or just straight up fantasy adventure in setting that is not Middle-Earth reskin.

>>6383282
artists put actual thought into the real-life human interaction with their work, as long as the person is willing to slowly, deliberately ponder it with an open heart. most art nowadays is more geared as an experience, intended to consciously or subconsciously interact with your thoughts/worldview - since they are the lens you inherently interpret visual input through, and often depicts pure emotion instead of just random objects.

99% of /ic on the other hand only thinks of "realistically rendered naked woman i want to have sex with" and "random landscape" as the best art ever.
while a lot of art that sells is indeed mediocre (in the same way anime/furry commissions sell despite being mostly deviod of any substance, also many artists are just mediocre in general), a lot of art that gets sold for a lot is actually good, it's just that it's above the mental capacity of userbase here.
like a toddler that hates movies for grownups because they're more complicated than paw patrol and meanings are not immediately and directly conveyed onscreen with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

if you are genuinely curious and would like to understand the appeal, check out this simple explanation: https://stephenlursen.com/blogs/stephen-lursen-art/why-does-abstract-art-even-exist-whats-the-point

>>6383331
Your drawing teacher sounds like a faggot, no offense.

>>6383286
>and no its not le "Art is money laundering"
It is though. OR you think that when a Chinese businessman buys paintings for record sums to just store in some vault and it somehow coincidentally benefits him in transferring cash out of China when he sells them again he is doing it all for his love of the arts?

Just one among countless examples.

>>6384650
Oh I get it I'm the real idiot for liking cute girls and fantastical landscapes that spark man's innate desire to discover, I kneel before my banana taped to a wall liege

>>6384739
>digishit or conceptshit
Love how this false dichotomy was memed into existence by a shitty stonetoss comic.

>>6384743
My banana highness speak no more I YIELD.

>>6383282
photobashed concept art is not even real art. once you see a handful of pieces, you begin to see how fucking soulless it truly is. once you learn how its made, you despise the human garbage that make it. similar to manga tracing and blender mark up of all objects. hard to respect or enjoy when you can tell the fucking moron nip cant even draw a straight line and its all traced or buckly tier drag and drop faces.

>>6383282
#1: Digital art is not real art and has no collector value. It's fungible and you can cheat in making it, so it doesn't show the struggles and experiences of the artist.
#2: Being distinctive is important, if the artist cannot be recognized by the way they painted the painting is of low value. Artstation is generic and all blends to each other.
#3: Most of the shit on artstation is escapist garbage, and just like genre fiction is almost entirely trash for YA-brained ADHD brainrot patients, so is escapist painting. Doesn't help that half of the fans of it are manchild chuds.
#4: Millions are baby money for the rich art collectors. They buy something in the 1-5 million range like you buy candy.
#5: The truly expensive pieces (Tens of millions) are usually the first to do something, or by an artist that was first to do something. They're similar to an academic paper with a lot of citations - even if it's trash, it's valuable because it was the first.
#6: Art is a status symbol. They are also Veblen Goods, so they become more desirable the more expensive they are. This leads to a snowball effect on select artists.
#7: Art is useful for money laundering and indirect bribing: Tip someone you want to bribe off so they buy paintings from an upcoming artist, then spend $5 million promoting that artist, and then the bribe receiver sells the paintings that are now worth way more at a profit.

Mix of these factors, really. People are going to claim that it's all #7, but it's a relatively minor factor outside of people getting money out of China or bribing people/tax evasion in the US.

>>6383375
This is certainly a factor, but this is also true of say paintings of streetscapes - people pass up many things that might be beautiful, but do not pay attention to them. The experiments where excellent classical musicians, whose concert tours make millions, play in subways are a good example: They rarely get an audience, let alone tips, to a significant degree.
This, of course, is also how you get things like the urinal and a banana taped to a wall. Experiences of art are context-dependent. Though the controversy generated definitely helped those two pieces as well.

>>6384469
Abstract art sells quite well even at the low end of the market, which is completely devoid of money laundering. The assumption that people do not like it is foolish at best, and narrative-pushing by /pol/tards or tradlarpers at worst.

>>6384712
Chinese art market also sells many things like traditional ink brush paintings and art ceramics for obscene amounts of money, and these are in significantly less demand abroad so they can't really be used for this purpose. You're assuming that simply because money laundering is a factor, it's the only factor - oversimplifying. Most likely because you're either a poorfag or a wagie, and this fits your slave morality bias of "rich people.. le bad!"

>>6384739
You don't like these things because they inspire you, you enjoy these things because they form a substitute good. The rich people that spend millions in art have no trouble having satisfying sex lives, surrounding themselves with beautiful people, and travelling abroad to explore. In other words, you're indulging in escapism through art. If you were a multimillionaire you would not feel the desire to do so.

>>6384828
Based. 1-3 are my fucking manifesto.

>Then you have "art" that's sold for millions irl which is LITERALLY random garbage arranged in some nonsensical pattern.
D-K. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's random.
>What is going on here.
What's going on here is that art isn't the same as technique and the developments in art over the millenia, and particularly over the past two hundred years or so have lead to a divergence in genres and styles. As photography took over the role of pictorial representation, artists were forced to reconsider their role in culture, giving rise to new and experimental expressions.
In short, turn off your computer and read a book on art history.

most art after michelangelo is shit. there's still some great art afterwards, but after around 1650 very little until none at all.

>>6383282
Same reason people pay a ton for retarded name brand trash instead of well made alternatives. Consoomerism.

>>6384906
why the fuck are you here then, nigger.

>>6384739
>banana taped to a wall
>>6384847
>and a banana taped to a wall
Keep proving that artwork's value to investors by talking about it, niggers. You're literally the reason it's successful.

Let's face it most of you modern "art" chuds are coping faggots.
It took state of the art AI to shit out "vapid" eye candies to fool normies, but it will only take a blindfolded high schooler with a paint brush to fool you chuds.
Modern "art" is literally Emperor's New Clothes irl.

>>6385128
But it was eaten. Invest in what?

>>6384828
>It's fungible and you can cheat in making it
so exactly like an oil painting, then, thank you.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/nov/04/rembrandt-sketch-raising-of-the-cross-not-fake-revealed-as-work-of-dutch-master
>#2: Being distinctive is important,
true.
>Artstation is generic
ironically that is an incredibly generalizing statement.
>#3: (...)
this is just psychobabble to me. you throw around words with too little context.

LICK MY POO POO TRAD CHUD

>>6384847
If I were a millionaire and that gay I'd simply drive into a tree to end my misery

>>6385256
One of it was eaten, what the people who bough it own are the concept of the artwork, and now have a god-given right to display bananas taped to walls. Anyone else doing it will get sued by them for gigabillions of dollars for plagiarism.

>>6385272
The ESL pajeet's peabrain self-destructed itself and couldn't even finish this post. What a wonderful sight to see.

>>6385368
ur ded

>>6385368
>One of it was eaten, what the people who bough it own are the concept of the artwork, and now have a god-given right to display bananas taped to walls. Anyone else doing it will get sued by them for gigabillions of dollars for plagiarism.
I unironically believe this is teh end game of NFTs and all the "secure" embedded chips in people's computers. You will not be allowed to save upload copy whatever any image you do not "own" and your own computer will enforce it against your will, as will browsers and ISPS.
Absolutely dystopian, but that's where we're headed.

>>6384712
>when a Chinese businessman buys paintings for record sums to just store in some vault and it somehow coincidentally benefits him in transferring cash out of China when he sells them again
that could easily be his real motivation for buying such an asset yes, however the price he pays is still the market value of the work, which doesn't make it money laundering, money laundering is when someone earns money through illicit means and pretends to the authorities that he earned it through legitimate means, an example of money laundering with art would be if you earned a million through cocaine sales, and claim you earned the money by way of selling an artwork, for this to work the value you claim to have sold the art work would have to be a million more than it's real value on the open market, not the case when the chinaman is buying in order to move wealth across boarders in your example, not sure what the correct term for that is but it isn't money laundering, if the chinaman obtained a worthless painting (no value in the art market) then falsifies his accounting to claim he sold it for a million to a fictitious buyer, that would be money laundering

>>6385405
>enforce it against your will
Oh yeah, same way anti-piracy laws are enforced. Oh wait...

>>6383380
I'd rather look at none of it. Why spend time looking at trash when you can go out into nature and see God's creation. It's no wonder the Islamic world hates graven imagery. Look at how much of a shit show art has become.

>>6385542
God's creations are template trash. That's why they started to be refined to be better by select humans during the Kamakura period and a wave of humanist European high renaissance. Only humans have the power to give art the soul that is context.... for now. Also real life scenary loses vs art iterations.

>>6385490
>which doesn't make it money laundering, money laundering is when someone earns money through illicit
It happens to be against Chinese law to transfer certain amounts of money of of the country without the authorities approval. It's a problem many western companies have to struggle with. Money laundering is about the origin of the money.

Generally these paintings are sold for high amount of money to help rich people avoid the law. Money laundering is just one example. Tax evasion is another.

Please apply common sense. Take a look at the painting here. It is not worth $450.3 million based on any artistic quality no matter how you try to argue it.

It's just about arbitrarily turning the paintings into currency. As long as everybody agrees they are worth that then wealthy people can use paintings to circumvent restrictions the proletariat has to deal with.

most art is in animation, games, and other media shit. The fake art being sold for millions is a small minority of art that's so miniscule it's almost useless to even talk about it

>>6385638
Just because it's not worth 450 shekels in terms of artistic value doesn't mean it doesn't have other forms of value. It has historical, collectible, and even use value (you can display it in a museum and make people pay to see it). As a nonfungible good it's well hedged against inflation, and isn't a deprecating asset. Also a great status symbol.

>>6385649
Yeah but only because someone paid $450.3 million for it. That alone gives it all those qualities.

There are plenty of great works that are being ignored or forgotten. The reason this painting is expensive is because it happened to be available when someone needed to pump the value of some asset.

>>6383282
you see someone literally sold drugs once upon a time for a lot of money or they sold god knows what and they didn't pay a cent in taxes then instead of paying taxes they just buy there friends sons finger painting of a clown fingering a painting for 1million dollars

>>6383282
one is photobashed generic tripe, the other one is a money laundering scheme. how do these two things compare in your head?

>>6383420
oh yeah? could you please decipher what that piece is about?

>>6383412
just say you're pretentious

i don't doubt that there are people who like modernist art, when you consider there are artists who do them and enjoy doing them. however even the ones who buy modernist art for decor from art fairs probably think the ones sold millions is unjustifiable.

>>6383375
Welcome to Art in general. It's just as much an aesthetic experience as it is a cultural one. There's no reason people should hold the Mona Lisa in the highest esteem but not Dame with Ermine, which is a much better painting by Leonardo IMO. It's about the history of the piece and the cultural meaning we attach to it moreso than its actual aesthetic value.

>>6387811
Some actually like it, but a lot of it is bandwagon/contrarian bullshit. I noticed a pattern where my fellow students would get really into conceptual art to please their professors and fit in with the other bfas/mfas. They were convinced that this is a superior way of creating because it was "anti-consumerist", which is laughable because this type of stuff sells for millions in NYC art circles. Most of them gave up on art after school, some of them went back to trad stuff or things like tattoo design, and a small few went on to be teachers to continue the cycle. I am not against the existence of conceptual art but the snobbery of people in those circles is overwhelming. I've only met a few who were genuinely down to earth people who legitimately enjoy what they do.

>>6387811
>i don't doubt that there are people who like modernist art
After cartoons & comics modernist art was some of the first art I got into (MODERNIST, early to mid 20th century stuff, not the later conceptual/performance shit.)
Many of the artists—like Kandinsky, Klee, Miro, Picasso—had great use of composition, color, and innovative use of form. All artists could learn something from modernists, can't imagine why any would close off a whole world of art.

>>6388214
pretentious art niggers in a nutshell

>>6388111
Far the majority of people who come to see the Mona Lisa just do so because they have been told it is the most expensive, most famous or most well guarded. They think that if they check it out they will see the best that generation of painters had to offer.

Then they go in and see that unimpressive painting.

>>6388265
I like color compositions but I wouldn't think if that painting as anything more than wallpaper. You could rearrange the shapes into squares for all I care. If you are talking about lines leading the eye into other objects then that is a "composition" I suppose but that is pretty unimpressive when the paining doesn't show a scene.

>>6388265
>can't imagine why any would close off a whole world of art.
that speaks more to lack of imagination

>>6383331
I've heard anons who attributed the same kind of " it's so deep and interesting bro, just look at the painting bro it's like so deep and spiritual broh. broh..." thing to Jackson Pollock paintings too. Honestly, I think they just drank the Kool-Aid and memed themselves into believing the Emperor's clothes are real. They go on and on about how the context of the piece is important, you have to view it in le CONTEXT of LE ART HISTORIE... but isn't that like a piece of media that relies on references to current trends and events to derive any value? Some flash in the pan crap? A LITERAL meme?
If you didn't know who Jackson Pollock was, his art would look suspiciously like a painter's dropcloth that someone hung on a wall and it wouldn't move you whatsoever. Same goes for Rothko's paintings, without context it could very well just be some piece of background decoration to take up wall space in someone's office and no one would give it any more than an idle perusal. Marcel Duchamp's Fountain would just be a urinal that someone left lying around and nothing more.

Marcel Duchamp himself pooh-poohed his contemporaries for making "retinal" art that's only about the visual, and touted his art as something that "served the thinking", but isn't the point of visual art to communicate visually? Did it ever occur to him or anyone else that if your artwork needs to be accompanied by a 50 page manual telling why and how it's artistically significant and interesting and good, maybe, just maybe, your art isn't any of those things? Does conceptual art really "serve the thinking" when you essentially have to be TOLD what to think about the art piece? I understand that context enriches the appreciation of a piece, but if all you have is all tell and no show, it stops being visual art and becomes a piece of creative writing instead.

>>6384828
>digital art is not real art
This will always be a stupid boomer-tier take. Of course digital art is real art, if you aren't "cheating" it takes all the mental technical skills (sans the nuts and bolts of dealing with a physical medium) as it would to create a piece in trad media. For that matter, digitalfags make trad art too, most of the time.
>and has no collector value
This is actually true, but the implication that digital art isn't "real" because of this is, again, a stupid boomer-tier take.

>being distinctive is important/artstation is generic
Actually true and what should be the real criteria for what should constitute "real"/good art instead of tradfag/digifag consolewar nonsense.

>>6384828
>1
There's no such thing as "real art" and trying to define it always makes you look like an idiot. If what makes you care about art is the fact that it's tangible, then your interest in art is purely consumption-based, not experience-based.Digital art is not as constrained by the medium as other traditional artistic mediums are, giving it a much wider expressive potential. And sure, some things are 'easier' in digital, but the complexity lies in how and what you paint moreso than wasting time with annoying shit like running out of paint or medium or making a mess. So long as there is drawing and painting going on, the struggle and experience of the artist will always shine through.
>2
Spoken like a true artlet. No one paints or draws the same way, not even beginners who chicken scratch. As generic as some of the shit on Artstation is, they're still clearly distinctive in style.
>3
A lot of what we consider to be art nowadays used to be escapist garbage at the time.
>5
Wrong. The value of art is completely arbitrary. The Mona Lisa is not special in any way whatsoever. What is special about it is the history of the painting and the person who painted it. What matters is brand, not innovation. Innovation can be part of that painting's brand, just as much as a rich art collector placing value on that painting can be part of that painting's brand.

>>6388531
>This will always be a stupid boomer-tier take.
Boomers are good actually. Most great artists were either boomers are pre-boomers.
>Of course digital art is real art
There's no object, just pixels on a screen. There's the absence of the artist's hand in the final product, which is why so much digital so-called 'art' has a sameness to it.

>>6388515
>If you didn't know who Jackson Pollock was...
I've been knowing who Jackson Pollock was since my teens. I enjoy his work aesthetically, don't need a 10 page grad thesis for it. Dude was based, despite being funded by the CIA. Pure unbridled American individualism and artistic freedom.

>>6388911
>There's the absence of the artist's hand in the final product
open your eyes, nigger, it's not hard to see that artists paint/draw in different ways digitally
Even soulless japs who only draw anime have noticeably different styles

Believe it or not, people often buy art to make a room look nicer. Who is going to hang >>6385620 in their dining room?

>>6389029
The problem with digital is that most artists are corralled into the same software, use similar brushes and techniques. Just look at the front page of Artstation.
Corporate software acts as an intermediary between the artist and the final product.

>>6389389
an even bigger problem is that it attracts weebs and gamers. but using soulless software fits right with them.
there is no point in making a true work of art like raphael's transfiguration if it's just going to be done in something that doesn't actually exist. not that anyone is doing that, but even something like a landscape (that isn't fantasy castles) fits better in physical media. you don't make still lives for digital unless it's for practice

>>6389389
>The problem with digital is that most artists are corralled into the same software, use similar brushes and techniques.
How is that any different from people painting with oil or acrylics or pencil? Two artists can use the same exact brush and techniques and you can still noticeably tell them apart. Most people use pencil, is traditional bad as a result? Of course not.
And I would even argue you're wrong, regardless. People use different digital brushes all the time.
>Just look at the front page of Artstation.
I'm looking at it now and there's a fuckton of variety. What are you going on about?
I swear you anti-digital fags are fucking blind. Grab two works by different artists and honest to god tell me you can't fundamentally tell that two different people made them.
>Corporate software acts as an intermediary between the artist and the final product.
What the actual fuck does this even mean? Are notebooks a 'corporate intermediary' as well? If anything, digital is easily a lot cheaper than traditional and you're retarded if you think otherwise.

>why don't people consider anonymous digital generic fantasy art as high art?!?!
>this art that's being given out for free should be worth more!
Seriously? Every other day with this shit.
You're asking in the wrong place, too. Most other posters are children who haven't even gotten halfway through their "animu-character-floating-in-a-void" stage yet.

>>6383282
Clown world

>>6389857
Art is subjective, and most subjects are retarded

>>6389857
Bruh, sometimes I wish I was born with a pussy. I understand how trannies feel, just not crazy enough to cut my dick off and call the hole a vagina, life as a woman is easy mode.

Board's full of coping faggots.
Any "eye candy" artist can cook up an abstract art, slip it into a pile of "legit" abstract arts, and none of you chuds can pick it out.
Any abstract "artist" trying their hands making real arts will stick out like a sore thumb.
Legit emperor's new cloth of the modern society.

>>6390315
what's your fucking point? yeah, Picasso could knock out skilled academic paintings as a teen, yet increasingly experimented with abstraction later in life. Other modernists took a similar trajectory.
So what was the impetus? To these artists skill must have not have been the only criteria for art. They felt a need to explore and experiment.

>>6390341
They experimented with abstraction as an expression of their inner effort at enlightenment regarding material manifested reality, knowingly or not.
The effort and direction is of great import to oneself, the product is not.
All those talks about some abstractions breaking into "new territories". I'll save the lot of you the trouble; here is the final end of ends of all abstract arts.

>>6390341
experimented therefore good?
skill was never the only criteria for art. but just because works of art do not show skill does not mean that they have all the more of other qualities that are good for art, which is a common implication.
and his more realistic works were are not very good even if we assume they are by him. like many artists of his time, he had to resort to bravura and looseness of stroke to try to make the works appear more soulful, but that is only superficial. look at the culmination of it in robert henri. a shit and utterly bland painter who pretended to express the spirit of art.

>>6383282
>What is going on here.
Money laundering, dude. It's been going on for generations. Good traditional artists still make good income but they don't get bigger exposure in the bigger public scenes because random 'modern art' shit is the best way for the high class to signal to each other "use this stuff to move your illegal cash."