Is there objectively bad art?

[Anonymous No.2199494]

https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc [Embed]

What does /ic/ think?

[Anonymous No.2199523]

>>2199494

Absolutely. Didn't even watch.

[Anonymous No.2199525]

It is a little worrying how ubiquitous this practice of putting little to no effort into your piece, but whacking a wordy plaque next to it to inject some fabricated importance into the piece, has become, and how much praise it gets nowadays. I think artists and art enthusiasts alike need to tighten up their standards for aesthetics, but I don't want to see impressionist and/or abstract stuff vanish completely because it can be done right and done well. Art should continue to evolve the way it is now.

[Anonymous No.2199533]

>>2199494
>please analyze this jackson pollock painting and explain why it is good
>instantly can tell that's not a jackson pollock painting

>the figure skating "metaphor"
>art is a competition

>by the art we patronize at museums or purchase at galleries we can make our opinions not only known, but felt blahblahbalah if the art doesn't sell it won't be made
this fucker for real, like real real?

this dude's got a very vacuumesque world view
>only talks of western art
>only talks about certain cherry picked examples of work without mentioning how those same museums house some other pieces he'd probably find amazing but no, rock
>masturbative idolization of the supposed "effort" that went into a piece
also LOL that "let's speak with our wallets" approach, just cause you stop goin to the met don't mean they gon take down their jackson pollock paintings (which are, by the way, pretty fuckin awesome in person)

>let's celebrate what we know is good and ignore what we know is not

damn, he got me, it too late for me to ignore him, shit

>>2199525 is probably gonna end up being the best post in this thread

[Anonymous No.2199537]

>>2199533
I really didn't like the figure skating bit, people seem to have forgotten how to make analogies that make sense.

[Anonymous No.2199544]

>>2199494
I think that is a must see little video not only for /ic faggots but for people in general. Mainstream mass media did a lot of harm fro decades deforming the concept of art just for shocking value. so you had TVnews promoting some autist sycko doing an "art exposition" about him takin' a dump in a silver plate while some musician played a Mozart piece.

Today's the mass media dominance is getting to and end with content on demand through the internet, so it's time to clean decades of garbage being poured on people's brains by some TV pieces of shit producers.

It's time to relearn and rediscover what defines "excellence" in any field of human culture, design, literature, architecture, etc.
There's a lot of questions to do to our selves as a society and civilization.

[Anonymous No.2199554]

Literally who cares?

Some people will make bad art, and idiots will say it's good.

Some people will make good art, and people with good taste will say it's good.

Where is the problem here?

[Anonymous No.2199557]

>>2199494
>What does /ic/ think?
I think this thread is useless; go back to drawing.

[Anonymous No.2199563]

>>2199554

dem watercolours

[Anonymous No.2199570]

>>2199554
>Some people will make GREAT art and a few skilled people with a good eye will praise it but majority will say it's "alright" and not as good as performance art of girl in bikini dumping beans on herself because THE STRUGGLE, STRONG FEMALE SO PROGRESSIVE and that great art will go mostly forgotten until literal shit on a sidewalk ends up more praise worthy than Mona Lisa

ftfy

[Anonymous No.2199577]

>>2199570

Aceept it, most people don't give a shit about art, no normal people look at a Ruan Jia painting for more than 10 seconds, they just say "cool" and move on to play call of duty and eat doritos

[Anonymous No.2199579]

>>2199554
>>2199563
>tfw i don't have and never will have the proper patience to learn and git gud at watercolour

[Anonymous No.2199584]

Isn't aesthetics a very relative thing? Like what I like may not be liked by others. I guess it all depends on the time we live in.

[Anonymous No.2199600]

>>2199584
>Isn't aesthetics a very relative thing?
No.

[Anonymous No.2199602]

>>2199533
>instantly can tell that's not a jackson pollock painting
Well how would you really know? Pollock did other paintings that didn't use the dripping technique.

[Anonymous No.2199603]

>>2199600
Okay, care to explain why?

[Anonymous No.2199610]

>>2199584
Yes, and it's all internets fault.

[Anonymous No.2199615]

>>2199603
Not him but I'll try.
For example... The global conscious is that morbidly obese people are fucking disgusting right? BUT there are a handful of individuals who have a fetish for them. Should we make them equal in value over fit, healthy people? Of course not, they are inferior in a lot of areas. Such as sports, jobs, beauty, genes etc.. Here you can draw parallels with art. Just replace the above with perspective, anatomy, color, composition etc. Just because a few muppets like it, doesn't mean it's good.

[Anonymous No.2199622]

>>2199603

evolutionary biology. Your dick gets hard looking at a beautiful girl for a reason. Your dick does not get that hard when Shaniqua the 42 year old hambeast with the yeast infected pussy and the foul breath bends over and spreads her asscheeks infront of you. There's reasons for that.

Health is beauty. Fertility, in women especially, is beauty. Virility and strenght, in men especially, is beauty. A symmetrical face, is beautiful. Firm round buttocks, are beautiful. There is a shitton of 'taste' encoded deep into us from millions of years of evolution. Of course some of it is acquired, and you can observe this comparing the differences in aesthetic perception throughout different cultures. But the basics of what we perceive as stimulating, harmonious, attractive etc are universal. Part of our evolutionary ancestry and a byproduct of our hyperdeveloped brains.

Make a direct comparison with music. Why is classical music so gorgeous? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvqVRzQkqkg

How about some enraged 'progressive conceptual musician' comes across and puts up this sound claiming it's 'contemporary' and 'so deep because it reflects god knows what social issue' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSnGJTxlo9M

[Anonymous No.2199635]

>>2199603
It's the reason two artists of similar skill level, similar painting technique, similar subject matter (Americana), and even studied under the same artist, can have one be remembered for his paintings for years to come and the other mostly be known for his teaching: Norman Rockwell and Andrew Loomis.

Which isn't to say Loomis' art is bad doesn't have appeal, it's that Rockwell had a much better design sense than he did. Loomis never really pushed beyond the basic rudiments of composition, color, anatomy, perspective, and the myriad of other art skills.

[Anonymous No.2199636]

>>2199494
> hurr support the ARC
but they suck. I'm not into the romantic stuff. Most of the ARC finalists suffer from the same problems of decadence of "contemporary art", as they are based in the same framework. I'd rather see works that exalt the "divine" aspects of man and science like in the reinassance

[Anonymous No.2199637]

>>2199615
>>2199622

Part of this is correct, liking some things over others is in our genes, that's why we prefer beautiful women instead of landwhales BUT, that doesn't make it objective that beautiful women are better, as humans we can think about abstract concepts and come to appreciate things beyond what our genes want us to appreciate, there's nothing wrong with that, in fact, it's a good thing to be able to appreciare more things, for example in music, you have a lot of genres that many people would dislike but the few who take time to appreciate them and "get them" end up really loving weird music, check this out, one of my favorite releases of this year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7EnnKcwTiE

Or pic related, it's much more easy to create this image than it is to paint Mona Lisa, but the colors in this image, that textbook feel it has to it, it makes me feel much more than when I look at many classical paintings.

Opinions?

[Anonymous No.2199643]

>>2199622
this.
The reasons today's impressionists throw at "conservative" art followers can be applied to any field of life. Except in other fields we laugh at their stupidity and are confident there's something very wrong with them. For example.. Why are women all over the world getting breast enhancement surgery if "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder", why are they not content with having an AAA cup? because it's NOT sexy, it's NOT feminine, it's jouvenille. The concept of bust size=femininity=sexual desire was around for the whole of human kind. There's a reason why this STANDARD exists and is alive to this day.
Look at pic related. Some might like it because it's bold, represents something to them and other hogwash. Some men and women can say that having small to no tits represents a strong woman who doesn't care about beauty standards, it may remind them of kids and they secretly want to fuck them etc.. Whatever the reason for liking small tits or modern art for somebody is, it is not the standard and it lacks a lot of things rather than replace them with something else.
As having small tits robs you of the possibility to squeeze them, look good in certain attire or inability to get a titjob, modern art robs your eyes of many things. This picture right here for example only gives you white fucking paint, that's it.
What's even the point of art? Why have people started to make art? So that they can SEE things that aren't there or don't look like what you want to show or you've seen something and you want everybody else to see it too. So we copy nature, add things, remove things and sometimes make up completely new things. But when you make something that has 0 logic behind it and it depends on people to figure it out for themselves what a completely blank canvas represents then you simply lack too much things for it to be called art, good art at least. I can't show you a piece of skin and an eye floating in a plate of blood and say it's a legit human.

[Anonymous No.2199645]

>>2199577

[Anonymous No.2199663]

>>2199643
I meant this pic, sry.
>>2199637
Very good point. But I compared healthy/slim/fit women to landwhales because I wanted to try and explain why beautiful women win by default. Not only are their genes more desireable but they are much more productive members of society.
I agree with you completely that we are not slaves to our genes and we can like something that others don't.
But your pic example still shows composition, lighting, anatomy, perspective and so on and so forth. I did not want to state by any means that everything has to be as pefect as possible. Hell my favourite works of art are DaVinci's sketches of human anatomy. People like both simple and complicated, color and greyscale. People have different tastes but the same way you can't compare 1 French fry with a bit of mayo on the tip to a 5 course dinner, you can't compare 2 lines and a dot with your pic provided.
Am I making any sense?

[Anonymous No.2199664]

>>2199643
>pic related
9/11 very conceptual anon

[Anonymous No.2199667]

>>2199570
Mona Lisa is overrated anyway.

[Anonymous No.2199668]

>>2199643
You lost me at breast size.
You must have a very undeveloped taste in women if you judge breasts by their size and not by their inherent attractiveness regardless of size.

[Anonymous No.2199669]

>>2199615
>sports, jobs, beauty .....
>beauty
>what is a chair
>legs, back, and chair

[Anonymous No.2199675]

dekhvideo dot vom/to-those-who-have-looked-at-art-and-thought-i-could-do-that-an-art-curator-explains-why-you-couldnt/

[Anonymous No.2199676]

>>2199663
I'm just trying to say that some basic standards should be met. Some people might get their fill with that one french fry, some people might like being unable to penetrate a woman because of the sheer masses of shin attached to her, some people might not care about squeezing boobs or looking good in most clothes.. But most won't and don't want to. Society can dictate the standard that penetrating a woman is for losers and that you should be happy with a mountain of fat, society can dictate that breasts are not womanly or beautiful anymore and society can dictate that one French fry is a meal. But do you want that and is it healthy?
We have to uphold some standards of quality in art, at least for cultures sake. Skill should be held in high regard in my opinion, but eastethics and "point" too.
As I won't accept that a landwhale is just as beautiful as a super model, no tits more appealing and "fun" as nice full C's, 1 French fry just as good and nourishing as a T-bone stake, I won't accept that a blank canvas is as good as the Mona Lisa.

[Anonymous No.2199680]

>>2199668
I didn't mean that by any means, sorry if it seemed like it. When I said small breasts I meant a literal flat chest. I used it as an example that you can do less things and there's less to see than with an A cup for example which is pic related.
Altho using tits for comparison wasn't a smart move anyway. Their primary function is breastfeeding which all of them can do regardless of size.
Yeah, it was a bad example, I apologize.

[Anonymous No.2199686]

>>2199680

>those tits

[Anonymous No.2199693]

>>2199676
>We have to uphold some standards of quality in art
Who exactly is "we"?
> Skill should be held in high regard
By whom?

The whole society or some ultimate authority? Why? Because you said so? And how? Start burning contemporary art galleries?

Why do so many idealist hold these socialist or even borderline fascist beliefs that something "should" be some way or another?

If the art you don't like isn't tax funded then you literally don't get to complain. And if the art you like isn't getting much attention, then guess what, you can't force anyone to care.
Fund and create art that you like and don't be a baby about things you don't like. The world is certainly not worse off for having different types of art. If someone found it appealing to some degree then that alone warrants its existence.

[Anonymous No.2199700]

>>2199675
Basically I can't appreciate the clocks if I don't know the artists back story or if I'm not a romantic. Cool.
She failed to say why are those scribbles FREAKIN' AMAZING OMGGG!!!1!!!11
And I don't share her opinion that showing restraint is a skill that should be held in such high regard (it's what ALL artists have to learn) nor do I agree with her that the "balance" of crayons paint and pencils is astounding. It's completely umbalanced, randomized and exactly what timmy's all over the world do.
Oh and the first painting... you can see that an artist did this and not an amateur... srsly? Are you fucking kidding me? He did the tehnical aspect of the piece well.. and that's suppose to be ASTOUNDING?

[Anonymous No.2199703]

>>2199686
Jared you're fat go home.

[Anonymous No.2199704]

>>2199602
>the dripping technique
>it's just a drip
>a brushy mark is just brushy
>there's nothing else to painting
>*brushy brushy drip drip drip*
>be my gf
>ew no
>ok
>this why this stupid god doesn't exist because he dnt care about humanity needs he just ignores us because he justn doesn't give a shit aout humans and he cant help because he dnt exist scince is all that matters he can help us
>ur fedoras on too tight

[Anonymous No.2199706]

>>2199704

*browses r9k once*

[Anonymous No.2199711]

See all the hate those over-rendering, asian illustration robots get? They're very competent and technically advanced artists. They can render the shit outta stuff. But nobody really appreciates them. Yet in the exact same fucking breath /ic/ will argue that certain art is bad because the piece took little or no technical skill to create.

There is no bad with a capital B. That's the issue. There isn't some overarching, universal "badness" that you can apply to shit.

So no, no art can be objectively "bad". A piece of art can be objectively amateur in one respect or another. If you're grading it according to the technical skill necessary to create it, you could call a piece good or bad. Or according to the creativy faculties necessary in the artist to create a piece. Or the quality of paint, or the fineness of the blending or whatever. Those are objective things. But a piece of art can not be entirely bad.

And lastly, who gives a fuck.

[Anonymous No.2199712]

>>2199693
>Who exactly is "we"?
>By whom?

Us, artists. And the whole of society is the ultimate authority because it simply is. That's the reality of things.
Why? Because if we drown in sea of shit with no complaints nobody will ever know that we used to walk on meadows. If you don't understand the importance of culture then get out of here and go read a book, visit a gallery or watch a play.
I do not state that something SHOULD be some way, it can be whatever you like. But it SHOULDN'T be considered skillfull, remarkable, incredible etc. because it's fucking not.
We are having a discussion about "objectively bad art". Nobody here is complaining but discussing, learn the difference.
>The world is certainly not worse off for having different types of art. If someone found it appealing to some degree then that alone warrants its existence.
Not what I said at all, did I mention anywhere that there shouldn't be blank walls or dog shit on display as art? I didn't, I just said that I think it's bad art. The point of this whole discussion.

[Anonymous No.2199715]

Why do people like modern art?
Why did the galleries originally decide that modern art was worth their time?
How did the people then accept that the galleries were right?
Why was modern art created in the first place?
Is it possible for art to go backwards and return to what it once was?
Would art changing to what it was in the past even be a good thing or is there a light in the future of where modern art is headed?

I don't have an answer to any of these questions and I believe that having thoughts on it would make the argument of art more productive. Does anyone here have any input on these questions?

[Anonymous No.2199717]

>>2199711
>If you're grading it according to the technical skill necessary to create it, you could call a piece good or bad.

That's what we're doing and that's what we want.

[Anonymous No.2199718]

>>2199615
>>2199622
>>2199643
>>2199663
>>2199676
>>2199680
i hope ur not all buttfrustrd, sweating, thinking "How can i explain my genius, maybe i'll just say it all over again"
>b/c TL;DR :^)

[Anonymous No.2199723]

>>2199718

Not sweating at all, but I am buttfrustrated. Because to me that conceptual garbage is fine and all, you know. Do what you want. Sure, sociocultural context, blabla, social issues blabla, it's all fine you know. BUT DON'T FUCKING CALL IT ART. CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE.

[Anonymous No.2199726]

>>2199715
all those questions, but you're not asking the right question.

galleries didn't have anything to do with it. it was artists anon, artists make art.

you can make money off of art. but money cannot make art, despite everything /ic/ tells you.

[Anonymous No.2199727]

>>2199712
>Us, artists
Including those who produce the "sea of shit" you're complaining about? Just who exactly are you speaking on behalf of?
Do you ever get the idea that society has already made up its mind and that's why things are the way they are?
> If you don't understand the importance of culture
I do understand the importance of culture. It just seems that we have different ideas about what culture is. You seem to think you hold the authority to decide what is and isn't culture.
>But it SHOULDN'T be considered skillfull, remarkable, incredible etc.
Again by whom? Every artist in the world, including those who disagree with you, or just the ones you agree with?
> I just said that I think it's bad art
So are you speaking on behalf of yourself or the whole society? Can you make up your mind?

[Anonymous No.2199730]

>>2199723
>BUT DON'T FUCKING CALL IT ART
Why not? Because you'll get pissy otherwise?

[Anonymous No.2199733]

>>2199715
I'll give it a shot.
>Because it's simple and subjective?
>Because people today are suckers for "strong messages" and simplicity. And because their other rich friends are doing it.
>That's not really true. Most people ridicule those galleries and the art they hold.
>That's just basic history.
>Yes, not exactly the same but yes. throughout history culture has been in a giant loop. First extravagance and richness then simplicity and straight forwardness. The art timeline. And it's not only painting, but theatre, literature, architecture and others. All follow the same mindset in their respective timelines.
>Depends on what aspect are you talking about. If you mean go back to strictly painting images of God or historical events than no.
>I don't really see the light at the end.

[Anonymous No.2199734]

>>2199730
Not him but great attempt at an intellectual conversation
>hurr umad XDXDXD y u so butthurt lol ok
That's you.

[Anonymous No.2199735]

>>2199730

because it's not the same fucking thing you retard

[Anonymous No.2199739]

>>2199734
Just pointing out that the guy's trying to repurpose the word "art" to suit his own opinions. See >>2199735 ?

[Anonymous No.2199741]

>>2199723
woah doggie, i said i didn't read it wtf are you babbling about.

>but just for giggles

i agree "socially conscious" work aka political activism co-opting the white cube to lend broader importance to their platform is detrimental to art. but what I'm trying to say is i don't believe you have or ever will see real titties.

[Anonymous No.2199743]

>>2199727
>dat butthurt

[Anonymous No.2199747]

As far as I can see in this thread modern art fans didn't give their side yet. Are you just gonna throw shit and namecall each other or are you gonna form an actual opinion?

[Anonymous No.2199755]

>>2199747
>As far as I can see in this thread modern art fans didn't give their side yet.
Well, as far as I know, no modern art fan calls for the destruction of any other genre of art, so I guess their side would simply be a response to the claims made by the other side?

Something along the lines of
>>modern art shouldn't be funded
>>modern art is shit
>>people should stop making modern art
>>artists need to abandon modern art
>"I disagree"
I guess that would be it.

[Anonymous No.2199761]

>>2199747
what's the point, the anti-modernists take their cues from youtube videos of a failed artist who writes his own cringy wiki page by a fake university made for dummies who don't have their own opinions and are susceptible to suggestions by anonymous internet demons -- oooooOOOOOoooooh, I get you :)

yeah, what about opinions.

[Anonymous No.2199762]

https://vimeo.com/112655231

here you go

[Anonymous No.2199765]

>>2199761
>implying
>>2199755
read the thread

[Anonymous No.2199768]

>>2199615
>valuing human beings
i feel like this is the new "are you a sociopath" question, tho i guess racism and phobias are just selective sociopathy so it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.2199770]

>>2199762
/thread

[Anonymous No.2199773]

>>2199717
Oh, well then yeah. If the measure is of technical ability then there is absolutely objectively bad art.

[Anonymous No.2199776]

It's just that people seem to make this leap in logic that goes from "I hold this opinion" to "All of society should hold this opinion".

And I'm trying to figure out how people get from there to here.

[Anonymous No.2199789]

>>2199765
implying what?
>that robert florczak illustrated a book and was inducted into the hall of fame of his podunk home town (major accomplishments mind you) after which he went on to write his own glowing poorly edited wikipedia article.
>that prager university is solely a youtube channel who's art video is often cited as major academic study by stormfags who conveniently ignore their repeated pleas for support of israel
>that the video itself is incredibly shallow glancing across not just art history but also florsczak's own justifications (this is also called dumming it down for people who aren't already knowledgeable of the arts and won't bother if it isn't on a glowing screen and over in two minutes or less)
>the ARC isn't just a blog for Fred Ross where he writes obscenely long uncited rants and strokes the egos of aspiring but uninspired draftsmen who basically pat each others backs like they're a part of something other than his blog.
>that's pretty much the same thing that's happening here and if you keep the carrot in front of these 12 yr olds they will keep complimenting your 2d waifu's anatomy instead of having real art conversations like real artists do irl

[Anonymous No.2199796]

What's even going on in this thread?

[Anonymous No.2199799]

>>2199494
>people taking this video seriously
smh

[Anonymous No.2199803]

>>2199796
/pol/tards having their anti-modernist art circlejerk as usual.

[Anonymous No.2199820]

>>2199584
I'd say it's either an objective thing or at the very least an intrinsic part of human nature. Throughout history people from different cultures have strived toward the same same ideals. You can read ancient texts from china and europe and reckognize that the people who wrote them struggled with the same questions and often found the same answers as we 'modern' people do. Different languages don't just have words for the same objects and activities, but also many of the same abstract concepts and ideas. When people discover the same things independant of eachother it is either because those things are a part of the world or a part of them. This also goes for art. people have discovered and rediscovered the same things about art over and over again throughout history. If our civilization were wiped out and humans reemerged 10.000 years from now I'm pretty sure they would rediscover the same principles of aesthetics that we have. The result would obviously look different, but it would be based on the same idea of beauty.

[Anonymous No.2199827]

>>2199820
>different cultures have strived toward the same same ideals
sometimes yes, often times no. morals and beauty ideals can be drastically different between different cultures and time periods
>Different languages don't just have words for the same objects and activities, but also many of the same abstract concepts and ideas
some languages don't even have numbers. you can find lots of words for concepts specific to a certain social structure that can't be accurately translated into other languages. novels and poetry often lose a lot in translation. so much in our lives is subjective. take the hindu of "skanda"- it's your associations with a word, smell, etc. if you're a coffee drinker and you smell roasting beans, you think is smells delicious. if you dislike the bitter taste of coffee, you might find the same smell repulsive.

tl;dr beauty is not a law of the universe, it's cultural and often individual.

venus hottentot != venus or urbino != venus of willendorf

[Anonymous No.2199849]

>>2199761
This

[Anonymous No.2199947]

>>2199849
yup
>>2199789
this nigga gets it

[Anonymous No.2200154]

>>2199704
You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.2200162]

>>2199711
i think "hate" is strong word for ruan jia and chinese artists, it's just a common critique to say that their paintings can be over-detailed and not use too much variety in the edge-work (though jia's edge work is typically good) which hurts the compositions and our eyes.

but i rather look at those than most abstract-expressionism.

[Anonymous No.2200183]

>>2199622
Keep in mind culture has an impact. The supermodel bod that's so popular nowadays wouldn't have been considered 'beautiful' back in olden days. Culture defines what health and fertility look like. It's not always the same.

Beauty isn't as relative as edgy museum artfucks want to believe. But it isn't entirely ubiquitous either.

[Anonymous No.2200885]

>>2199494
if you think a value judgement can be objective or that a human being can know objectivity you are an idiot

[Anonymous No.2200889]

>>2199622
stop talking like youre an authority you fucking moron. what your paroting is literally demonstrably incorrect bullshit made up by people too afraid of change to accept that everything that do isn't 'natures way'.

if you understood the history of classical music even slightly you would know that historical trends and technological advancements played an enormous role in music. Certain tones sound jarring when played with others, that literally it.

[Anonymous No.2200896]

This is an art board? how does no one know the difference between modern art and contemporary art? The amount of cleary uneducated opinions is embarasssing

[Anonymous No.2200905]

>>2200885
did you watch the video? of course he's an idiot.

[Anonymous No.2200907]

>>2200889
this. even [minor key= sad] isn't universal

[Anonymous No.2200910]

>>2200896
This is an art board. On 4chan. Meaning we get lots of kids and full-retard conservatives just like /b/ and /pol/, whose knowledge of art history amount to the video OP posted.

[Anonymous No.2200916]

>>2200896
This is called semantics. Nobody really gives a shit, so sorry safari, fam.

>>2200910
The one instance in which history can truly be said to be bunk is art history. It's completely irrelevant and if you paid money to study it I almost feel bad for you. Art history is even irrelevant to abstractfags; if it wasn't they wouldn't constantly put out work derivative of picasso, pollock and duchamp and act as if what they're doing is original. The only purpose art history serves is to allow some pedantic abstract faggot to stroke his ego in between his droning on about what his elephant-tier shit art 'really means'

[Anonymous No.2200921]

>>2200916
>art history is completely irrelevant
Oh my god my fucking sides. Enjoy creating art in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.2200932]

>>2200921
Creating art in a vacuum would be far more pure and earnest than being a pretentious, financially ruined art history major retard whose years of costly study have imparted him with the stunning revelation that 'it's been done', lmao. Congratulations, you're the art world's equivalent of the fat middle aged single woman who knows every trivial bit of information about the personal lives of her favorite television celebrities.

[Anonymous No.2200944]

>>2200932

Not him, but I still think the statement "art history is irrelevant" is stupid. This is coming from someone who gets bored to tears by art history, but it's important to understand what was important to people and why, historically.

But he seems to think it's vital for creating art, which is silly. It's good to find inspiration from art history but far from necessary.

[Anonymous No.2200953]

>>2200932
>Creating art in a vacuum
is that what you are aiming to do as an artist? i'm curious to see your works or at least get a description of them

[Anonymous No.2201054]

>>2200916
>This is called semantics. Nobody really gives a shit, so sorry safari, fam.

Yeah it is semantics but if I called oxygen air then people would be right to think my scientific theories weren't worth reading

[Anonymous No.2201144]

>>2200932
here is your pure and earnest art

not saying there's anything wrong with pollock or abex, but this is what you produce when you try to reject all the art that came before you and create something entirely new.

who isn't the least bit influenced by other artists though? even pollock was influenced by lyrical abstraction and native american sand painting. do you shut your eyes and ears when you walk past a gallery window, and shun museums?

everyone is influenced by art history, other than outsider artists, whether they realize it or not. using perspective? thank Vasari. enjoy the nude or still lives? those genres were established long ago. paint a vase of flowers then give some thanks to the Dutch Golden Age. do you like expressionistic brushwork or impressionistic handling of like? thank the modernists.

you lose nothing by learning about artists and movements that came before you, it can only inform your practice and lead to new insights.

[Anonymous No.2201149]

>>2201054
oxygen, hydrogen, what's the difference. they're both shit elements that I don't need in my life.

[Anonymous No.2201153]

>>2201144
>perspective
>Vasari
kek stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.2201155]

>>2200932
>>2201153

(updated with correct picture)
here is your pure and earnest art

not saying there's anything wrong with pollock or abex, but this is what you produce when you try to reject all the art that came before you and create something entirely new.

who isn't the least bit influenced by other artists though? even pollock was influenced by lyrical abstraction and native american sand painting. do you shut your eyes and ears when you walk past a gallery window, and shun museums?

everyone is influenced by art history, other than outsider artists, whether they realize it or not. using perspective? thank Vasari. enjoy the nude or still lives? those genres were established long ago. paint a vase of flowers then give some thanks to the Dutch Golden Age. do you like expressionistic brushwork or impressionistic handling of like? thank the modernists.

you lose nothing by learning about artists and movements that came before you, it can only inform your practice and lead to new insights.

[Anonymous No.2201160]

>>2201153
You're right, Filippo Brunelleschi deserves more credit, but Vasari was the one writing about and popularizing these ideas.

[Anonymous No.2201188]

I think people hate contemporary art because they're jealous how much money it makes.

[Anonymous No.2201202]

>>2201188

I am dumbfounded by how much money it makes. I don't care that it exists, it just boggles my mind why its so prevalent and desired.

[Anonymous No.2201209]

>>2201202
>why is contemporary art so prevalent
because everything made today is contemporary regardless of style.

[Anonymous No.2201214]

>>2201144
No one's saying you bury your head in the sand. However, obsessing over artists, especially who they 'were' both career-wise and in their personal lives in relation to the 'artistic community' is no different than the people worshiping television celebrities or football stars. The art 'movements' and the people that created them amounts to nothing more than the mind of trivial information that belongs on an early 90's game show

[Anonymous No.2201220]

>>2201214
if you think art history is all about learning trivial and irrelevant facts about the lives of individual artists then you're retarded. it covers the evolution of art from cave walls to ancient egypt and greece to the renaissance to the present day, and includes all of the styles, media, techniques, and innovations that have occurred over those thousands of years. if you think your work is not influenced by art history I urge you to show it, because it's more likely that you're just unaware of the giants whose shoulders you sit on.

[Anonymous No.2201223]

>>2201188
>>2201202

It makes money because of the handicap principal, because it's used for money laundering and because abstractfags are just plain stupid, superficial twats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PiqC-vfYLw

(tl;dw, abstractfags adore a painting one of this guy's friends did until he told them it was 'only' $500, lmao)

Make no mistake though, 99% of abstract artists don't make anything more than what you could make just starting out at McDonald's out of high school.

[Anonymous No.2201269]

>>2201160
Alberti would be a better candidate. Vasari barely touched on perspective, and it was in the intro to his Lives that barely anyone reads.

>>2201214
another anon. I agree: this is the state of art history now. What's more important are the theories. Vasari's Lives of the Artist for example were meant to be more moral, to show examples of which virtues a painter should have, but now mostly non-painters study it for its trivia. We also get types who are more concerned about academic textbook categorization of artists, rather than on the intent and quality. And they don't even care about or believe any of the ideas being presented aside from acquiring its trivial information.

[Anonymous No.2201277]

>>2201220
>post your work

Please be my guest, you're the one championing the relevance of all of history's minutia related to art and its assorted bowel movements so you yourself must be stunningly proficient seeing how important it apparently is.

Not once have I said that learning from other real artists is wrong, however, the historical narrative and personal dramas of artistic 'personalities' are among the most banal and worthless things you could be attached to. All of those things you described can be learned in an afternoon and discarded just as quickly.

>evolution
Art has quite literally devolved tho

[Anonymous No.2201403]

>>2201188
we still live in a society where modern and contemporary art isn't introduced to children, we aren't educated to appreciate it, we are educated (whether explicitly or not) to appreciate classic art and its derivatives. Most people don't have the time/energy to educate themselves as adults and so there becomes a conflict of taste between average joe and the elites of the art world. In a classist society this build resentment amongst the average joes who seeing elites doing something they don't like or understand often makes them feel inferior and they have no option to preserve there self-esteem beyond trying to denegrate those elites and their tastes.

[Anonymous No.2201431]

>>2201403
>you're not educated
>you don't understand
>unlike me

There is no amount of narrative that makes a Hundertwasser or Rothko piece anything other than what it is. A piece of shit. To stare, mouth agape, into an incomprehensible or infantile, simplistic mass and purport to receive some transcendent message on behalf of the room-temperature-iq artist is absolutely laughable and cultish behavior. Abstractfags are the same kind of people that created the social environment that gave rise to the Salem witch trial incidents. People making elaborate claims about literally seeing the mythological devil cavorting with the defendant first hand because that's what everybody else in their clique was doing has a lot of overlap with these delusional 'artists' huddled together in their art school and gallery covens proclaiming to find salvation in some display of debased food items.

[Anonymous No.2201555]

The way I see it modern art is exactly like fat acceptance
Rather than working hard to become beautiful you just lower the standard and claim that you're beautiful in every way
The shit artists at the time weren't good enough to get into the salon so they make their own gallery and claimed it as art.
Impressionism isn't about depicting modern day life it's about the beginning of the death of art. The entire collapse of art from 1960s to today is entirely degenerate, incorrect and cancerous to society. It needs to be stopped. Imagine a world where fat acceptance becomes a valid view point and then it progresses on to further destroy social constructs of beauty making people that are ugly and shit seen as beautiful. And then nobody fucking tries anymore and everywhere looks like communist Russia. Art is not progressing, it's not beautiful or deep or whatever bullshit these tumblrites of the 1900's say, it's rubbish

[Anonymous No.2201739]

>>2201431
I never claimed I was educated, I'm really not, most modern and contemporary art does nothing for me. You're literally saying that because you don't understand/appreciate something it is impossible to understand or appreciate it. You do realize there is a world outside your head right?

[Anonymous No.2201777]

>>2199643
>why are they not content with having an AAA cup? because it's NOT sexy,
lolwut

[Anonymous No.2201796]

>>2201777
anime is trash

[Anonymous No.2201801]

>>2199675

this has to satire

[Anonymous No.2201803]

>>2200183
>Culture defines what health and fertility look like.

No it doesn't anon. This is the kind of crap feminists want you to believe. You cannot overwrite tens of thousands of years of evolution. Sure culture has a minuscule influence, but the basis of sexual attraction and the traits that define it are waaay too deeply encoded.

[Anonymous No.2201812]

>>2199676
>We have to uphold some standards of quality in art
who chooses the standards? Its as if this entire conversation has blown over your head.
> I won't accept...
you don't matter. realize that. you don't matter to the art world, you don't matter to history. stop thinking that just because you have an opinion that somehow that is important. you sound exactly like the ass burger special snowflakes on tumblr who can't accept that other people dont actually want to create a new gender to describe themselves.

[Anonymous No.2201814]

>>2201803
is that why spartan men all fucked each other? spartan genes?

You do realize that talking about human nature with convinced authority makes you look painfully fucking stupid. you're a fucking manchild who spends their time on an anime forum and you think you've cracked the code of human thought, don't you realize how autistic that sounds?

[Anonymous No.2201920]

It seems like the idealists in this thread are also hardcore eugenicists, coincidence?

[Anonymous No.2201953]

>>2201431
makin up elaborate claims about litterally seeing anons finding salvation in some display of debased food items is the social environment that gave rise to the /ic/ abstractfag incidents at the hands of nouveau-classical *cough*faggots*ackh* tablet painters.

[Anonymous No.2201966]

>>2201739
If you take out the "unlike me" portion of the post (which was hyperbole on my part btw) the point stands. The inference is always that abstract artists and their followers have some sort of mental upper hand on those that don't see the value in it. Implying that they are "uneducated" and that therefor their tastes are less than those of this supposed "elite class" and their continued fascination with Duchamp derivative entropic statuary and "installations" and Pollock derivative paintings .

>You're literally saying that because you don't understand/appreciate something it is impossible to understand or appreciate it

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I don't agree with it, and I think it's shit ninety-nine-times out of a hundred (and is often deliberately so) and that the people that appreciate it most are pedantic image-obsessed ego-tripping phonies more often than not and we all know it. I've never shied away from conceding that some choice pieces of abstract art can have a raw aesthetic appeal that a lot of, if not all "realism" lacks (note I'm talking about paintings exclusively here, "installations" are almost always just ridiculously, heinously bad with few exceptions), however, it's impossible for me to look at any pure abstract piece like a Hundertwasser or Guston and not consider how the "anything goes" environment the acceptance and reverence of this kind of work created across the board has literally ruined everything, including the lives of thousands upon thousands of young artists who leave their high-priced art schools without even the credentials to work the counter at a fast food restaurant.

Regardless of the validity of abstract or not, for the good of the public art schools should have remained very exclusive places, but they're not because these for-profit schools need a constant influx of hopeless, unskilled and soon to be financially ruined kids they can serve as incredibly expensive baby-sitters to.

[Anonymous No.2201972]

>>2201966
Being educated in a specific field doesn't make you superior to others, that may be your view but it isn't mine. Of course people with the contextual knowledge and a trained eye will enjoy things within that context more but that doesn't mean people who have been trained differently or not at all are inferior.

Your second paragraph is just you re-writing my quote but 8 times as long.

You may no like it, you may think 99% of it is shit, but that doesn't mean that others don't sincerely take the opposite view. You are not god, you are not a subjective authority. when you say what YOU like, what YOU think etc. it doesn't matter to anyone but YOU, and when you claim that those judgements matter outside your head you look like an idiot. You will continue to be ignorant as long as you continue to believe that your value judgement somehow trump other peoples or that your value judgements can't be contradicted and when they are people are only doing it to be different or controvresial and deep down agree with you.

[Anonymous No.2202056]

>>2201972
>tl;dr some people just have different opinions.

What a revelation!

There are people that get literally sexually excited by the thought and act of being urinated and shit on. They don't care about their partner's physical beauty, their aesthetics or figure, the product of hard work, exercise, and diet, all they really want is a big greasy burrito shit in their face. A similar level of "shit taste" and mental illness manifests itself in the art world, except instead of rightly being relegated to the seedy underbelly of society (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/deep-inside-the-chain-pub-piss-dungeon)), these people have by some twist of fate found themselves in the halls of power (often at the expense of the taxpayer because only a small portion of "peacocking" white-collar criminals will actually fund any of this stuff).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9skl9nijPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnbxO7P7Xnk
https://www.youtube.com/v/I9lmvX00TLY

[Anonymous No.2202059]

>>2202056
turn off your computer and go play with your blocks, youre never gonna get it

[Anonymous No.2202125]

>>2202056
>often at the expense of the taxpayer
wat?

[Anonymous No.2202146]

>>2201277
you're working off the false assumption that art history = irrelevant minutia and trivial facts about the personal lives of artists, and not, you know, the fucking history of art, every painting every made, etc.

[Anonymous No.2202169]

>>2202125
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/woman-given-20000-grant-to-make-people-yawn-for-art-gallery-and-other-crazy-taxpayer-funded-projects/story-fni0cx12-1227377237404

[Anonymous No.2202188]

>>2199533
>jackson pollock paintings
>pretty fuckin awesome

can't even kek

[Anonymous No.2202191]

>>2202188
>stop liking what I don't like
>boo hoo hoo

[Anonymous No.2202195]

>>2199768
Buthurt fatass detected. Drop the fork and get your ass of your chair for once fatty.

[Anonymous No.2202198]

>>2202191
JUST FUCK MY CANVAS UP, FAM

[Anonymous No.2202199]

>>2202191
You don't have to stop liking it, just remember you have bad taste.

[Anonymous No.2202200]

>>2202191
I think this is cool-looking, but see no reason why it's more important than the splotchy print on composition notebooks.

[Anonymous No.2202222]

>>2202199
I'll remember that you think my taste is bad, and continue not caring about your weightless opinion. thanks for the input.

[Anonymous No.2202953]

>>2202169
Oh, you're Australian. I'm sorry I can't help you. It's the hemisphere, your toilet is all fucked up. No. Let go of my leg. Stay. I'm sorry.