/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2095309]

Explain "modern art"

You know what I mean, but for the sake of baits and trolls I'll explain: how can this picture cost millions? There are many other pictures like it that could've been made by a child without any talent and sell for millions.

Banned words: "money laundering"

[Anonymous No.2095319]

>Banned words
k
/thread

[Anonymous No.2095320]

made me think of neapolitan ice cream

[Anonymous No.2095321]

>>2095319
Yep, because that automatically filters useless people (you included) from this thread. Buh bye!

[Anonymous No.2095324]

>>2095320
>made me think of neapolitan ice cream

this nigga gets it

[Anonymous No.2095330]

>>2095309

Do you go to college?

Is there an art history department?

You'll have a much better time getting a serious answer from some of the professors there than by 4chan. Unless this is yet another modern art bait thread on which case carry on

[Anonymous No.2095332]

>Rich people
>tones of money
>can't figure out where to spend them on
>goes to art auction house
>bid a random piece on the catalog
>gets to show up on the headlines
>worth every penny

[Anonymous No.2095335]

>>2095309
CIA psyop

[Anonymous No.2095338]

Modern art is great.

[Anonymous No.2095341]

>>2095309
Feelings and equal representation replaced skill, talent and hard work, due to left-wing ideology that's been gaining greater and greater influence in western society.
It's not just art.

[Anonymous No.2095346]

>>2095309
The obscene selling price thing is almost solely a secondary market thing. Dealers, auction houses, corporate collections, very wealthy private collectors, dead artists with a finite number of works. Without bringing up money laundering, collections with pieces like this are about diversified investments and prestige, not supporting or patronizing living artists. Non-abstract works that are highly sought after by powerful collectors also have ridiculous selling prices. It's not really about appreciation of certain styles or movements, except for how it relates to a collection or investment.

[Anonymous No.2095348]

>>2095341
This answers a question "why they want the painting" (which I of course already knew, the answer is 'they like it for reason X'), not the question "why it costs million dollars"

[Anonymous No.2095352]

>>2095346
Doesn't seem plausible. Investments usually have actual value (for example stocks gain profit, materials have uses, patents let you charge people) and that is how their cost is determined. Painting's value as an investment isn't determined only because some guys want to circlejerk it.

[Anonymous No.2095354]

>>2095346
>>2095352
For example: Let's say there are 5 friends who want to make awesome money. Person A draw a circle on a paper and sells it to B for 1 mil. B to C for more, C to D for more, D to E for, say, 1.5 mil. Just because people have paid X for it, doesn't mean an actual buyer (outside the circlejerk) will pay that for it.
>hey do you want to buy this piece of art for 1.5 mil
>no, because it's a paper with a circle on it
>but it's an investment, 4 people have already made money for it
>uh no, it's a piece of paper, it's value is not 1.5mil

[Anonymous No.2095361]

>>2095338

This is a hipster hacks actually believe.

[Anonymous No.2095370]

This is just so retarded. If I were rich I would just distribute the money for generations of my offspring. One billion dollars would actually support my entire family through hundreds of years. Retarded Bill Gates giving money to charity.

[Anonymous No.2095395]

>>2095348
>"why it costs million dollars"
So that they can sell it at a higher price later and make even more money.

[Anonymous No.2095398]

>>2095370

[Anonymous No.2095416]

>>2095309
a lot of modern art (minimalism and related movements) is about paring the image down to its most essential elements in order to find the essence of art- an act of purification. often they even try to remove the hand of the artist, believing they can remove the personal and communicate some objective truth (mondrian etc.)
I'd recommend a book called "Theories of Modern Art" if you want a firm understanding of the motivations, it contains a lot of primary sources from artists and critics.

[Anonymous No.2095435]

>>2095309
I have one word to explain the entire modern art industry.

Provenance.

[Anonymous No.2095667]

>>2095354
long-term investment, ya dingus. They don't flip something they just bought at an auction. They hold onto it for a generation whilst showing it or loaning it to museums, which slowly raises its prestige through exposure and may generate profit in the meantime. Being off the market and getting more prestigious raises prices. Also, how much do you think it's worth to a big corporation to have its name in every press release for purchasing X work at Y price? Are you saying these people aren't very good at being very much more wealthy than you and I? I can tell you all the truth I feel like, but it's you who's gonna have to learn to deal with it, dude.

[Anonymous No.2095670]

>>2095354
>hey can I pay your money for that artwork?
>no because money is just paper with writing on it

>hey can I pay you gold for that art?
>no because gold is just a rock.

[Anonymous No.2095676]

The rich and their children being bored with nothing to spend their money on constructively.

The rich buy overpriced "art" which is nothing more skilled than any human can make... it actually surprises me how lazy modern artists can be at times.

Then their children want to be "artists" without having any skill, thus, they go into art school and get catered to since there are many of them with lots of money. Over time the curriculum changes to teach about modern art and just how great it is.

This is why art school is a fucking joke, too. Hardly anyone left to teach any noteworthy skill besides being pretentious.

[Anonymous No.2095737]

>>2095676
We share the same opinion.

[Anonymous No.2095741]

Rothko is for anyone who has gazed a little too long into a bucket of Neopolitan ice cream...

Enjoy the summer, boys... SURF'S UP!

[Anonymous No.2095850]

>>2095309
Doesn't really answer the question [How can this picture cost millions] but it does explain modern *art* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

[Anonymous No.2095869]

>>2095850
>Prager
How about no.

[Anonymous No.2095880]

>>2095676
Nah. People like you only believe this because you're unwilling to learn about the history of art. modern art is just a reaction to past eras. A reaction to those who think the best art is illustrative or should be produced by skilled a draftsman. A critique of people who think theres rules to art.

[Anonymous No.2095884]

>>2095676
this

also money laundering

[Anonymous No.2095893]

>>2095880
I think you're right, it started like that. But has gone on for so long that anyone that had skills in representational art has the fine art world and art schools. It's a joke that has gone horribly wrong.

[Anonymous No.2095894]

>>2095893
*left

[Anonymous No.2095897]

I call this derivative cartoonism .

[Anonymous No.2096364]

>>2095309
I'm not that big on most modern art, but I love Rothko's work. Personally, I always see landscapes being simplified down to its purest, most visually pleasing form in Rothkos.

[Anonymous No.2096396]

>>2095370
>One billion dollars would actually support my entire family through hundreds of years.
>What is tax?
The moment you die, half of it goes to the state. Then, inflation and estate tax start bleeding your inheritors.

[Anonymous No.2096403]

> sold for almost $300 million

[Anonymous No.2096448]

>>2096396
>what is buying gold and burying it on an island?

[Anonymous No.2096462]

>>2096448
Gold buried on an island can't feed anybody, anon.

[Anonymous No.2096564]

>>2095309
The value i see in abstract painting is that it makes a good home decor.

You have to remember these are PAINTINGS, not video game illustration. They are made to go on the wall of someone's multi-million dollars house.

I don't know how many of the fags on this board actually have paintings on their walls. That's why you fag don't get it.

If you had the money, would you rather have a XIXth century painting representing an old dude (a religious painting whatever), or something bright and abstract so you don't get bored after 24 hours?

[Anonymous No.2096570]

>>2096564
>would you rather have a XIXth century painting representing an old dude (a religious painting whatever), or something bright and abstract
I like both. I wouldn't want a (late) Rothko, Newmann, Ellsworth Kelly, or any other hard-edge or color field painter (excepting maybe Frankenthaler). I'd love some action painting or lyrical abstraction, Gorky, de Kooning, Kandinsky, etc.

I'd rather have high renaissance or baroque art than 19th century work, but I'd be fine with Delacroix and the Romantics are fine too though.

[Anonymous No.2096574]

>>2095370
>Retarded Bill Gates giving money to charity.
What makes your family more important than the people Bill Gates helps with his charity? In that situation they would just be shitty entitled rich kids anyway, why would you care that much about providing for them?

[Anonymous No.2096585]

>>2096570
>Frankenthaler

now THIS is really shit

[Anonymous No.2096596]

>>2096585
different strokes, anon. don't be so salty

[Anonymous No.2096600]

>>2096585
>>2096596
Does this guy make money from these? If so, please explain how this is done.

[Anonymous No.2096604]

>>2096600
Frankenthaler was a wealthy jewess from the upper east side, with a lot of connections and whatnot.

A baboon could literally do better.

[Anonymous No.2096605]

>>2096600
Helen Frankenthaler is a woman, and a well-known member of the abstract expressionist movement. She's in museums across the country. So I think it's safe to say she's getting paid. The works are massive by the way, and the colors interact in subtle and ephemeral ways because of the soak-stain process that she used/invented.

[Anonymous No.2096740]

>>2096564

well, if it is because you want to have something on your wall, let a monkey pour some color on a sheet of paper -> same result. no need to spend millions of dollar. so i guess that cannot be the reason.

[Anonymous No.2096777]

>>2096740
>implying a monkey could make
>>2096605

are the narrowminded fucks who can only into realism really dumb enough to think anything abstract is monkey-tier?

[Anonymous No.2096822]

>>2096777
I swear some people see some weird shit when they look at abstract art that I don't see. Someone teach me how to see!

[Anonymous No.2096825]

>>2095880
I've taken art history classes and have researched about this subject and its roots.

it's just people being pretentious (different and edgy). Then it rubs off on gullible rich folks who want to be cultured.

It's so much more profitable and the amount of skill is near 0, of course it's going to stay alive and thriving.

[Anonymous No.2096832]

>>2096605
>The works are massive by the way, and the colors interact in subtle and ephemeral ways

I'm amazed how many people think asinine and meaningless power-words can justify an elephant-tier piece of garbage.

Get back to Hundertwasser's hairy butthole gaylord lmao

[Anonymous No.2096833]

>>2096564
Realistic XIXth century painting

[Anonymous No.2096835]

>>2096822
>teach me how to see!

Go to art school, they'll teach you everything you need to know.

[Anonymous No.2096856]

The market and prices have nothing to do with art nor the work itself. It's just speculation. This thread is retarded.

[Anonymous No.2096873]

>>2096777
>>implying a monkey could make

They can and they did do better than this shit >>2096604

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8O9vuH3wB4

Elephants as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foahTqz7On4

[Anonymous No.2096899]

>>2096873
I'm not really a fan of contemporary/abstract art and all that stuff, but if you seriously can't see that drawings by animals lack any kind of composition and intent that is present in human drawings, you must be artistically impaired or something.

[Anonymous No.2096906]

>>2095850
not this retard again, please....

[Anonymous No.2096908]

I mean, seriously, do those people who constantly make threads on /ic/ complaining about contemporary even draw? Like, it's not just a /pol/ invasion?
Because I rarely see people who are actually into painting have such extreme views.

Meanwhile, a lot of politically charged individuals who have never picked up a brush in their lives seem to hate contemporary art with a passion. And view artwork only as tools of political warfare. You know, "this art sucks because jews fund it" and "we should only allow correct genres of art like soc-realism because it promotes non-degenerate culuture", etc.

This dismissal of art beyond its value as a political statement really worries me. It's like people think fine art is on the level of political cartoons as a medium.

[Anonymous No.2096911]

>>2096899
That monkey's art in that user's post has better composition than a lot of human abstract I've seen. Those orangutans from the video do suck though.

http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/pierre_brassau_monkey_artist

[Anonymous No.2096912]

>>2096899
Agreed; if you can't score a hundred on this test then you need to leave.

http://reverent.org/an_artist_or_an_ape.html

[Anonymous No.2096919]

>>2096912
This is really stupid. I probably can't even name a single abstract painting off the top of my head, but it's painfully easy to tell which ones are made by humans because they actually convey ideas.

I sincerely hope the people doing the ape comparisons are being cheeky and trying to push an agenda and aren't just tragically artistically impaired.

[Anonymous No.2096928]

There are people out there who hate certain types of art and want them gone. They've never painted or even visited a gallery. And despite that, they hold those extreme opinions. They don't care that the art in question is funded by private entities, and that the audience of the art in question does not include them at all. They just want it gone because they don't like it.

Doesn't that worry anyone else?

[Anonymous No.2096938]

>>2096908
>Because I rarely see people who are actually into painting have such extreme views.
>Meanwhile, a lot of politically charged individuals who have never picked up a brush in their lives seem to hate contemporary art with a passion.
this

[Anonymous No.2096944]

>>2095850
Uh, can someone explain to me what is a single unit of "standards"?

Retarded bogus graphs that don't even pretend to make sense is a sure sign that whatever you're watching is complete garbage. Even people who agree with the opinions should be insulted by this, because the authors assume the audience is retarded enough to swallow something as idiotic as this.

[Anonymous No.2096948]

there was an article about it some time ago, shame i did not saved it. It was basically a conspiracy theory tho

[Anonymous No.2096968]

>>2096944
the entire video is a joke, you'd have to be braindead to think the dirty paint rag he claimed tricked his own students looks anything like a pollock- regardless of what you think of abstract expressionism.
>>2096948
>muh aliens
you're probably referring to the fact that the CIA supported abstract expressionism. there was abstract art by successful artists before abex though, and lots of artists and movements throughout history have had benefactors. furthermore, there's no evidence that abex wouldn't have succeeded without the CIA, they just got behind a movement on the rise.

[Anonymous No.2096971]

The function of a traditional painter was in a sense to become a human camera. With the apperance of technology, photography specificly, the need for an artist to be able to paint nature to near perfection was
was gone, and artists were able to create art with more abstract and simple elements, playing with composition and clours etc.. . Modernism is in a way art in a purer form or at least not limited to elements found in nature, only by an artists imagination often accompanied by a concept, for additional layers. Just because you and everyother ignorant fuck fails to realize this doesn't make it any less valuable, perhaps it makes it even more.

[Anonymous No.2096984]

>all these butt-blasted abstractfags ITT

Go back to whatever sewer in new york you crawled out from you drug addled retards

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

http://io9.com/5811891/scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html?_r=0

[Anonymous No.2097016]

>>2096971
>The function of a traditional painter was in a sense to become a human camera
nah. style is big throughout the medieval period, in mannerism, certain renaissance artists like el greco, etc.

[Anonymous No.2097033]

>>2097016
youre missing the point, im not saying that every artist before modernism was a realist. Of course there were various styles. What I'm implying is that before photography came the only way to record visual information was to get an artist with a certain amount of skill to paint it for you. With the invention of photography the emphassis shifted from skill to the idea.

[Anonymous No.2097042]

>>2096984
>this butt-blasted realism-only-fag

>modern-art-was-cia-weapon
true, doesn't mean it wouldn't have existed or succeeded without the CIA though.
>scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do
literally not what the study claims, the author needs to learn how to read scientific data.
>art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers
true for any style, it's all about the fame of the name, not whether it's abstract or representational

I don't even have to open the links to smell the bullshit, that's pretty sad man.

[Anonymous No.2097047]

>>2096984
>this butt-blasted realism-only-fag

>modern-art-was-cia-weapon
uh, no. abstract expressionism, which existed towards the very end of modernism, was supported by the CIA, because it was the first big American movement and the US was locked in the cold war. doesn't mean it wouldn't have existed or succeeded without the CIA though.
>scientific-proof-that-abstract-art-is-only-4-better-than-what-a-kid-could-do
literally not what the study claims, the author needs to learn how to read scientific data.
>art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers
true for any style, it's all about the fame of the name, not whether it's abstract or representational

I don't even have to open the links to smell the bullshit, that's pretty sad man.

[Anonymous No.2097048]

>you're "ignorant"
>you're "uneducated"
>you just "don't get it"
>"unlike me (and my associates/teachers/the "in-crowd"/etc.)"

Every suggestible abstract sycophant ever.

I maintain as always that abstract art can have a raw aesthetic appeal, look at some of the pieces by Umberto Boccioni (whom you'll note has a decent realist foundation) for example, but raw visual is all it is (which isn't completely devoid of value, mind you); however to laud the typical room temperature IQ abstractfag like Pollock, Rothko, Hundertwasser, Guston, Frankenthaler or any number of these other turd burglars who obviously have no artistic ability whatsoever as if they were or are "geniuses" is absolutely hilarious by any account.

[Anonymous No.2097062]

>>2097048
honestly I get about as much pleasure from running into one of those paintings in a gallery than I do caravaggio or bruegel or titian. For me, it's like going to a natural history museum and choosing between the triceratops and the stegosaurus.

those are what I'd generally call "painter's painters" though. they emphasize the physicality of the medium in a way that I think a traditional painter will find particularly engaging. there's a difference between making an image out of paint and emphasizing the materials themselves in your image. A Pollock is nothing more than paint slung on a canvas, there is no narrative or deeper message, but for some people that's all they need from art- an object they find visually interesting.

[Anonymous No.2097100]

>>2097062
Guston's paintings are absolutely grotesque in every conceivable way and to refer to his work as something a painter should enjoy let alone anyone other than Guston himself is silly.

[Anonymous No.2097134]

>>2097100

[Anonymous No.2097495]

Are these artists skilled in classical fundamentals and their styles developed from this? There is none of their early works ever shown.

[Anonymous No.2097505]

>>2095309
People will paint or sculpt or draw whatever they want and can call it whatever they want. They can amass fans if people want to be their fan. They can sell their works. It doesn't matter what you call it.

[Anonymous No.2097510]

>>2097495
some modernists are, some aren't. it really isn't a necessity unless you're working in that style, so long as you understand the basics of color/shape/line etc.

[Anonymous No.2097535]

[Anonymous No.2097548]

Life in the 21st century has become abstract. The realismfags are only rebelling in the only way they know how, by acting like inverted rebels. Pioneering the past.

[Anonymous No.2097557]

>>2097510
Boccioni and Picasso (provided that conspiracy theory involving his father being responsible for his early works is just that) are the only two really "out there" modernists I'm aware of that have a strong grasp of realism, or did at one time anyway. The rest of the fartknocker 500 as far as I'm aware can't draw worth a damn because they're riding on the coattails of the earlier modernists who could.

>>2097535
lel

[Anonymous No.2097634]

>>2095309
have you stood in front of a Rothko? Didn't think so. You've seen it on your phone or at most, a 27" monitor. This is now how it is meant to be seen. Please don't discuss such art without having stood in front of one for a minimum of 15 minutes.

My gf thought they were stupid squares as well, but I made her stand in front of some at the Tate and at LACMA, now she totally gets it and loves Rothko.

So please stop being a pleb. You're only embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.2097637]

>>2097062
>>2097048
dat Guston art. Fucking love me some Guston.

[Anonymous No.2097678]

The cost of a modern art piece is determined by :
- where the artist studied
- in which collecions of know people the artists pieces are in
- how well given artist is socializing.

Modern art is supposed to give a diffrent perspective on a given topic by the artist (head topic of an exhibiton). :) thats what my exboyfriend explained to me - he is a modern artist.

[Anonymous No.2097778]

>>2097678
this is nearly pretty much what it is

its also determined by how much he follows trends and how well is he able to move within them invent something new while still maintaining the trend pathway

that being said most modern intermedia arts trends for example are cockshit

[Anonymous No.2097784]

I've posted this before, but there's a Norwegian painter who's primarily inspired by old masters like Rembrandt. He's relatively well known, and his work is displayed all over the world, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Yet modern art critics hate him, because they consider his work derivative rather than innovative. That really says a lot about the contemporary art community, and it's ironic that this makes him a much more of a real artist than the politically motivated sheep who follow the contemporary art doctrine.
It really is odd that the left-wing idiots who now dominate the top position in society and the media still consider themselves rebels and anti-authoritarians, given that they now represent the establishment.

[Anonymous No.2097790]

>>2097784
Forgot to post his name: Odd Nerdrum

[Anonymous No.2097793]

>>2096585
Jesus fucking Christ, it literally fucks with my eyes to even look at this.

[Anonymous No.2097819]

>>2096908
>>2096908
>>2096928

The last painting I made was in grade school. With these credentials established, I can say 90% of the modern abstract art I have seen to be retarded clusterfucks with no point other than to hope they sell.

>>2096968
This one is bueno. Notice the artist actually put effort and used colors that don't give me a headache. Would hang on wall, but would not shell out hundreds for.
>>2096585
No bueno. Random-ass colors, no discernible shapes, too simple to resemble anything, easily repeatable. Almost looks like the paper the artist was using to mix and experiment on colors. If that's the case, then it needs to be sold as a collectible and not a fucking art piece.

>>2096971
So.. Why don't most paintings look like acid trips than scams on canvas?

[Anonymous No.2097830]

>>2097678
> where the artist studied
So... Part of it is advertising for universities? With most knowledge and am immediate audience being available via the internet, I wonder how this will change over time.
> in which collecions of know people the artists pieces are in
Basically cred.
> how well given artist is socializing.
Now I can see that many pretentious artists use this as the most expensive and complicated form for pan-handling. I'm not even mad, I'm only mildly impressed.

[Anonymous No.2097849]

>>2096911
>Art critics, journalists, and students, glasses of wine in hand, silently contemplated Brassau's creations. Their praise was almost unanimous[LOL]. Rolf Anderberg of the morning Posten later wrote that most of the works at the show were "ponderous," but not those of Brassau:

>"Pierre Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer."

lol

[anonymous No.2098013]

Well, do you know how in science the new generations build on the achievements of previous generation? Well, this happens in Art too.
There is always an international conversation on what is the most representative of the times, what captures the spirit of the human experience in that particular moment. Modern Art did just that back then. To understand any particular kind of Art you have to understand also what is happening in society at that particular time.

[Anonymous No.2098014]

>>2097634
(not that anon)- I absolutely agree with you that it must be seen in person, as the scale and subtle use of color can't be conveyed in a thumbnail on the internet. that being said, I have stood in front of several Rothkos, and was nothing but bored. Seeing a Pollock in person was quite an experience though.

[Anonymous No.2098020]

>>2097678
maybe your uneducated boyfriend can explain to you what modern art is, because it ended in the '60s. so unless he's pushing 80, I doubt he's a modern artist.

[Anonymous No.2098046]

>>2098014
i'm exactly the same. i don't know if seeing a rothko was something else when you were coming off the back of picasso and what not, but he don't do shit for me now. pollock is like looking at the night sky or something, really something special.

[Anonymous No.2099237]

>>2095309
>explain modern art
>my kid could done that
>how is this worth millions, explain economics to me
someone should make some sort of /ic/ bingo, because this exact post has been made and validated by other morons at least ten times by now

[Anonymous No.2099245]

>>2099237
Good idea!

I have another game: Post abstract art then guess whether it was made by a pro or a preschooler/monkey/whatever. Google image search not allowed.

[Anonymous No.2099270]

>>2099245
pretty easy, have you ever tried that online test? you'd have to be braindead to fuck it up.

[Anonymous No.2099279]

>>2099270
the results say otherwise.

the people that could tell the difference knew the works beforehand or noticed that the dude made the shit in fucking mspaint lol

[Anonymous No.2099283]

>>2099237

Wasn't there a wiki out there that has a bunch of common and effective ways to troll /ic/. I wouldn't ve surprised if modern art was up there

[Anonymous No.2099286]

>>2099279
>the results say otherwise.
wrong. abstract from the study:
>Museumgoers often scoff that costly abstract expressionist paintings could have been made by a child and have mistaken paintings by chimpanzees for professional art. To test whether people really conflate paintings by professionals with paintings by children and animals, we showed art and nonart students paired images, one by an abstract expressionist and one by a child or animal, and asked which they liked more and which they judged as better. The first set of pairs was presented without labels; the second set had labels (e.g., “artist,” “child”) that were either correct or reversed. Participants preferred professional paintings and judged them as better than the nonprofessional paintings even when the labels were reversed. Art students preferred professional works more often than did nonart students, but the two groups’ judgments did not differ. Participants in both groups were more likely to justify their selections of professional than of nonprofessional works in terms of artists’ intentions. The world of abstract art is more accessible than people realize.

the mspaint thing is another topic, and totally retarded an obvious. I'm talking about comparing the work of professional abstract artists with the art of children and animals.

[Anonymous No.2099294]

>>2099286

[Anonymous No.2099304]

>>2097062
pollock
http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock

[Anonymous No.2099397]

>>2096403
That's a fucking masterpiece, you pleb.

[Anonymous No.2099402]

>>2095309
what i don't get is why anybody cares whether or not someone enjoys not they might not. I mean if these people who buy this shit are such idiots why would you want them to possess your paintings or any of the paintings you believe to be more valuable then their current investments?

[Anonymous No.2099449]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6xLztH36kY

...fucking, it happens; maybe look into how it happened for each artist? You don't have to read I've got a series if you wish to learnt up on a tuesday.

[Anonymous No.2100299]

>>2095309
>could've been made by a child without any talent and sell for millions
is it your iron clad pride that keeps you from making good on that assertion? or is it the jewish conspiracy that makes you and your kids not winrar?

[Anonymous No.2100306]

>>2095416
>and here you see a serious reply, note OP can not into on account he is troll
>>2095309
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjgBuXUW44Q
>you see? it happened again.

[Anonymous No.2100315]

>>2096585
>>2096596
>>2096604
>>2096605
studies and teeny weeny paper works, i agree these are not the most compelling. why not show something on canvas at least. Most of her great work is at least 6-8' tall.

[Anonymous No.2100319]

>>2099402
>anyone but OP's grandma is shaking out the coin dish for his DBZ scribbles

[Anonymous No.2100408]

>>2095338
thats schiele, hardly modern considering its almost 100 years old

[Anonymous No.2100413]

>>2096403
>dat anatomy
>those proportions
>that landscape
>those colors
>that lack of depth
>that hack's sign
>that pricetag

I honestly want to be the next hitler and burn all this trash, so nobody will ever have to look at this while thinking that it costs almost one third of a fucking billion dollars

When did people stop to appreciate real art? I assume most people never appreciated it in the first place and since they are stupid, they just repeat what other people made them think about it,

[Anonymous No.2100415]

>>2096832
this so much

[Anonymous No.2100421]

>>2100315
>A rich jew cunt getting paid millions for shit like this

I can really feel Hitler

[Anonymous No.2100469]

>>2100421
I've read his ideas on art, they're totally retarded an butthurt. You two would probably be good pals.
>>2100413
>real art
stahp

[Anonymous No.2100510]

>>2100421
>artists get millions ever

[Anonymous No.2100558]

>>2095309
>how can this picture cost millions?
because bidding wars are rarely about the work itself. It's just two people betting against one another.

[Anonymous No.2100563]

Explan lif lif iz modrn urt u sis scm

[Anonymous No.2100577]

>>2096835
The biggest fault is not telling the difference in being "an artist" and being an artist hired for illustration and the like. You don't need an university degree to become a craftsman. Art schools are creating theoretics, historians, people with knowledge on philosophy, literature etc. Maybe some people chasing their own vision of art. If you are producing commercial art like animation then of course it's pointelss to search for employees among these sort of art school graduates.

Not to mention that claiming art schools don't teach anatomy or life drawing anymore is false. I don't know how it is in America but in Europe there are plenty schools that offer traditional academic art education.

[Anonymous No.2100578]

>>2096873
Just for information: the animals are schooled to do certain types of pictures mechanically for entertainment and money. As far as we know they may not even comprehend what it is they are forced to do.

[Anonymous No.2100585]

>>2099286
>Participants preferred professional paintings and judged them as better than the nonprofessional paintings even when the labels were reversed.
Preferred the paintings labeled as professional or the paintings that actually were professional? Sorry, I'm just a bit confused. Would read the full study though.

[Anonymous No.2100595]

The same reason people pay for a brand name, it's about being a cut above the rest. The Rockefeller family used to own this Rothko, so naturally it's an exclusive piece.

[Anonymous No.2100691]

>>2095309

You know nothing about art /ic/

90K burgerdollars, ez mode

http://gothamist.com/2015/05/21/artist_steals_instagram_photos_sell.php

[Anonymous No.2100816]

>>2100469
Hitler needs some Loomis as it looks.

I meant that Jews controlled the art world, and to a big extent still do

[Anonymous No.2101024]

>>2100585
the latter

[Anonymous No.2101026]

>>2100595
buying a brand name is wasting money just to look good, buying art by a famous artist is a smart investment in something that is bound to appreciate in value and can be resold.

[Anonymous No.2101269]

>>2095321
Oh god go away you cringe worthy piece of worthless human resource

[Anonymous No.2101347]

>>2097784
Love odd
Also he's highly celebrated

[Anonymous No.2101357]

>>2100469
How did he paint this four years before he did that?

[Anonymous No.2101556]

>>2101357
his dad painted it and signed adolf's name.

[Anonymous No.2101563]

>>2100408
Modern art spans from world war 1 to the 90's pretty much. If you mean art after the 90's you should call it "contemporary"

[Anonymous No.2101572]

>>2101347
>Also he's highly celebrated

That depends. His work sells for millions, but certain parts of the art community hate him.
He's also fairly conservative as far as artists go, and he frequently gets into trouble for criticizing contemporary art and the left-wing politics that dominate the art community.

[Anonymous No.2101575]

>>2101563
the border of modern art are hazy but most people put the start and end dates earlier, from about the 1860s to the 1960s.

[Anonymous No.2101578]

>>2101357
I think Hitler could have been a decent artist. He struggles a lot with perspective, but given that he's an untrained artist with none of the tools we have today, who knows how far he could have gone with a formal education. Not implying he would have become a master, but he would likely have become competent enough to make a living off of it.

[Anonymous No.2101583]

>>2101578
>he would likely have become competent enough to make a living off of it.
he tried and failed to make a living off of it. his postcards didn't sell, the art academy rejected him twice, and he couldn't go to school for architecture because he dropped out of secondary school.

inb4 jewish conspiracy, most of the buyers of Hitler's work were Jewish.

imo most anyone can become competent if you invest enough time and resources.

[Anonymous No.2101584]

>>2101556
I chuckled

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnu5uW9No8g

[Anonymous No.2101585]

>>2101563
(that's a beautiful drawing)

[Anonymous No.2103596]

all you fags are bashing modern art but then use graphicsl tablets to draw, thats as modern as it gets

[Anonymous No.2103750]

>>2095361
What does "hipster" having anything to do with this? What makes this "hipster?"

[Anonymous No.2103754]

>>2103596
>confusing modern fine art with modern commercial art

How can one person be this stupid?

[Anonymous No.2103791]

>>2095670
Gold is actually a metal anon

>metals aren't rocks

[Anonymous No.2103792]

I can actually get into modern art sometimes, but only when the skill of the artist is clear behind the work.

This piece, for example, is just a few curving lines, but manages to convey everything it needs with them. You can tell John Covert knew how to draw and make art, and drew upon that knowledge to expand to the abstract.

Matisse, on the other hand, could only produce things that looked like a shit sandwich, and I didn't even have to look for his pathetic attempts to draw traditionally to know they'd be terrible. He took a base of shit and built his shit throne atop it, and I will never understand why anyone ever thought he was anything but garbage.

[Anonymous No.2103814]

>>2103754
:^)

[Anonymous No.2103821]

> how do I get millions of dollars for paintings that look to my peasntly eye like I could do them easily

[Anonymous No.2104701]

>>2095880
>reactive

There you got it, folks. Its not about originality, or creativity. Its about being a little contrarian bitch.

Fuck modern art, and fuck you.

[Anonymous No.2104743]

>>2096777

Actually that was done many years ago in the prime of modern art as some sort of joke. Someone got a chimpanzee to paint on a canvas and even gave him a little show at some art gallery or so. Most of the critics fell for it and praised it like any enthusiastic critic trying-too-hard not to be left behind.

Abstract is monkey tier nowadays. I do get the point tho, "my 5 year old could have done this" but he didn't and etc. is not a valid argument when facing probably thousands of artists that have jumped in the abstract expressionist train a-bit-too-late; your artwork aint nothin special.

tldr 2015 abstract is like female pop artists who are barely getting into that Lady Gaga bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2104765]

Someone explain this to me:
The definition of 'abstract' is "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." So really, most paintings that we call 'abstract' should really be called 'concrete' right? Unless your subject is abstract, a sound, emotion, etc..

[Anonymous No.2104809]

>>2104765
Abstract is a depiction of something not found in nature. As in not Realism. I'm not sure i understand your question

[Anonymous No.2104886]

>>2103792
thats a nice art piece

[Anonymous No.2104971]

>>2104765
many 'abstract' paintings are about an emotion or sound. abstract in itself just means abstracted from reality, basically any intentional stylization, even if you still recognize the subject. non-representational/non-objective/"fully abstract" art is completely removed from how the depiction of objects.
>>2104809
not true, you can paint a realistic dragon, and dragons aren't found in nature.

[Anonymous No.2105891]

>modern art
https://vimeo.com/121001475

[Anonymous No.2105898]

>>2105891
that's contemporary, not modern

[Anonymous No.2105899]

>>2105891
What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.2106041]

>>2097062
I'm not an artist or know shit, but I like your point of view. Very objective and open. Good for you.

[Anonymous No.2106057]

what are some good books on modern art/artists/theory/critics/history?

[Anonymous No.2106084]

I've come to the conclusion that shit art has to exist for us to understand what good art truly is.

[Anonymous No.2106085]

>>2106057
see
>>2095416

[Anonymous No.2106828]

Art is selected by the topnotch society/politicans
This art is getting praised by everyone because of its greatness
>Nazi Germany 1930-1945
lolwat

[Anonymous No.2106831]

>>2106828
literally have no idea what you're trying to say.

[Anonymous No.2106842]

>>2106831
theres no difference from the past and now
its just politics

[Anonymous No.2106861]

I'm going to take a guess and say that these are valued more for their name and historical value rather than their actual artistic value. Kind of in the same way how Louis Vuitton bags are valued much more than identical bags that can be purchased for hundreds of dollars less.

[Anonymous No.2106877]

>>2106861
you'd be wrong. in the end, value is usually tied to a name, regardless of style or era. there are tons of 10/10 renaissance masters that most people have never heard of. those that are known show skill, but also a powerful name and historical value. this is true for renaissance and modern art.