/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.2189007]

What do you think of modern art?

[Anonymous No.2189008]

>>2189007
is that a pepe

[Anonymous No.2189012]

>>2189008
One of the rarest

[Anonymous No.2189015]

>>2189007
Modern art is a huge fucking era of art history, I don't feel any one way about the entire thing. Some movements I like, some I don't.

[Anonymous No.2189030]

>>2189015
Define "Modern Art". ´Cause you know, Mainstream media in association with art galleries told the masses since the 70's that modern art was some diarrhea plastered on canvas. And that telentless autists like Pollock and Warhol were "artists". So we have a huge problem there.
I support the Art Renewal Center statement about recovering the art for the people and kick out the scammers from the art throne they bought with tons and tons of dirty money and biased media.

[Anonymous No.2189049]

I hate modern art but I love that pepe.

[Anonymous No.2189052]

>>2189007
It's kind of wacky in the sense that it's art made for other artists. That could be said for a LOT of art, though. The wankiness is just more evident here I guess

[Anonymous No.2189062]

>>2189030
>Define "Modern Art"

noun
1.
art that was produced in the late 1860s through the 1970s and that rejected traditionally accepted forms and emphasized individual experimentation and sensibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art

P.S.
ARC has autistically narrow tastes and wears a tinfoil hat.

[Anonymous No.2189066]

>>2189030
Pollock is the shit.
Warhol is a joke, but that's the point.

[Anonymous No.2189069]

>>2189052
I disagree that it was usually 'made for other artists', though I'm sure this was occasionally the case. I think the artists made work for themselves and the public, but the public for often not receptive. it takes time for new styles to catch on, people aren't very comfortable with change and bucking the norms.

[Anonymous No.2189086]

>>2189062
>>2189066
Damn! What the fuck is all of that vomit on those pics?! Seems like stuff made by little autistic 3 year old kids. I think you uploaded the wrong pics, yeah it must be that.
>>2189066
>Pollock is shit.
ftfy

Winners of the International ARC Salon competition 2014/2015 on pic related. Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.2189179]

>>2189086
yeah, I like that shit too, and appreciate the skill involved, but realism isn't the only style that appeals to me.

[Anonymous No.2189186]

[Anonymous No.2189239]

[Anonymous No.2189244]

[Anonymous No.2189247]

>>2189007
idk OP, what do you think of human history?

[Anonymous No.2189481]

[Anonymous No.2189507]

>>2189066
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.2189556]

Too technical, in that the technique is apparent, much more so than "traditional."

[Anonymous No.2189562]

>>2189556
Not sure I understand you entirely, are you saying you prefer the licked finish of the high renaissance, as opposed to the gestural quality of many modern works that are influenced by expressionist or impressionist tendencies?

[Anonymous No.2189615]

>>2189562
I do prefer Renaissance paintings even if I didn't mention it specifically, but not because they're "lick finished." There are licked finish paintings that I dislike precisely because that seemed to be their main concern. It's technical in the same way as I see a lot of modern (in the general sense) are: you are meant to see firstly the technique. I'm of a mind that the more apparent the technique is, the more self-referential the work becomes to itself. I didn't actually mean to refer to those bravura paintings that we see today, although they do fall into the category of what I call technical in the sense that I have used.

I actually don't think most Renaissance paintings are too finished in their handling. There is a great deal of the hand visible, yet the artists were often conservative in using eye-catching effects. I myself take great pains myself in analyzing the layers and the brush strokes but that is so that I can better express a painting, without directly confronting the viewer about them. An actor tries to know every detail of the character and the meanings of his lines, and analyzes them word by word, not so that the average viewer can analyze them, but so he can express things better.

There are also some painters who now try to paint like the old masters whether Renaissance or otherwise, study the layers and pigments and show the process too much in my opinion, that when you see them even an average viewer will note the under layer among the first things.

What I meant more particularly with modern art being too technical can be explained better in this way: when one thinks of the terms for the the styles that came came up in the last century and a half, such as "collage art" or "action painting" it immediately comes to mind the technique, much more than in other terms made before.