/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3210118]

What are your thoughts on the future of art? Where is art going? Do people actually care about paintings? How will art become/remain relevant again? Is there even a future for art? Discuss.

[Anonymous No.3210126]

Maybe the art that people care about will be art that has some kind of shock value or art that is presented in a special way. pic related

[Anonymous No.3210138]

[Anonymous No.3210141]

>>3210126

[Anonymous No.3210143]

>>3210118
When academia gets an overhaul, art will become beautiful again. It won't come easy though, many of the good artists have died before they could ever share what they knew.

[Anonymous No.3210145]

The future is digital and it’s already here. Paint is for money-launderers and historical curiosity.

[Anonymous No.3210152]

>>3210145
That's beside the point

[Anonymous No.3210906]

>>3210118
I think we will continue where Singer Sargent left off and build on that. Ateliers are popping up everywhere and I think this is the precursor of a big art movement. I hear a lot of doubters obsessing over what is there left to say with art as if we have to reinvent the wheel every fucking time. I think this is a symptom of contemporary art - it is the art of the mind and abstract concepts, disregarding the knowledge nested in the body. It is the body that will come back in art, the renaissance of the fundies and the analog experience of looking at great paintings in real life instead of looking at diamondskull.jpg

[Anonymous No.3210912]

>>3210152
Is it? OP is clearly limiting his definition of art to colloidially suspended pigments.

[Anonymous No.3210948]

>>3210141
>>3210126
Don't forget the solidified blood sculpture

[Anonymous No.3210983]

I hope to see less of this. I mean c'mon this is just lazyness in its purest form.

[Anonymous No.3210991]

I never understood this mulling over art as a historical progression or a "scene". None of that is real and art history as trends is defined much later and only by leaving out most of it.

People on here sometimes spend too much time complaining about other peoples work, or the "art world" or whatever and miss the point entirely. Art is making what you want to make because you want to. Make it or don't, what's it got to do with anyone else's work?

Any if you come back with "its important for jobs" or something similar then ok, then dont do it. Life has no afterlife and is an absurd dream anyway, why spend this brief flicker of time that we have bitching over less then nothing?

[Anonymous No.3212542]

"Life is an enormous novel. Today, when the fictional elements have overwhelmed reality, the main task of the arts seems to be more and more to isolate the real elements in this goulash of fictions from the unreal ones."

[Anonymous No.3212548]

>>3210118

[Anonymous No.3212592]

There will always be a future for art. There is no society that does not practice some form of art, be it painting, sculpting, textiles, performance, etc. and the reasons run the gamut from religious purposes, political purposes, personal expression, pure aesthetics, to just the act of making itself.

>>3210145
>the future is...
That is inherently and demonstrably incorrect. They said the same thing about figure painting when the camera became readily available on the market. Painting has never died and will never die. Physical materials will always always have a place in the art world.

[Anonymous No.3212610]

It will go where it needs to go. The economic, social, political and cultural circumstances will build it. People will always want to express themselves. Sometimes they will throw shit at a wall and people will buy it. Sometimes people will see some person sacrificing their entire life just to perfect their craft and that will be fine too.Who cares honestly just focus on yourself.

so what >>3210991 said

[Anonymous No.3212616]

>>3210126
God I hope not.

[Anonymous No.3212619]

>>3210118
In terms of artifice, lol no. Paintings will never again emerge from niche into the mainstream. get over it.

That being said, there will always be new content to depict, so it should never truly fade either.

The worst people are those who devote themselves to retrograde traditions as if the most important paintings are somehow in the far past. There is no excuse for being irrelevant, the only way to glorify painting is by being the next step in its evolution. Show us something new.

[Anonymous No.3212621]

>>3212619
Sorry, but traditional painting is the peak of artistic perfection and you can still explore new concepts with this style and tradition. Post-modern nihilists need not apply.

[Anonymous No.3212676]

>>3210906
Agreed, I often feel the work of people with JSS, Whistler, William Nicholson's still lives, that style of work is the picking up point, and is where I'm looking for references with my oil painting.

[Anonymous No.3212677]

>>3212619
wtf/ People spent centuries trying to find the elusive 'secret' behind the Venetian's colouring. Beauty in art is timeless, even is the ruling class try to make out it's unimportant.

[Anonymous No.3212752]

>>3212677
Which people? You mean the guys who make blinds?

[Anonymous No.3212754]

>>3212621
Tradition shouldn't be the peak of anything. It should be a moving baseline. Degenerates must vacate.

[Anonymous No.3212778]

>>3212619
>Show us something new.
That usually involves using a retarded medium to produce nothing of artistic merit. Something new should mean new theories on artistic expression within an established medium not much people do that anymore.

[Anonymous No.3212827]

>>3212592
>Physical materials will always always have a place in the art world

Yeah, for money laundering and historical curiosity.

[Anonymous No.3212857]

>>3212827
jhkj

[Anonymous No.3212900]

>>3210118
A.I. will be able to create more elaborate art than anything ITT in the space of 25-30 years and art skills will be almost irrelevant. Internet has already made most forms of media nearly completely disposable.

[Anonymous No.3214036]

>>3212754
what an old sophism, you are already starting some kind of tradition

[Anonymous No.3214037]

>>3212900
what forms of media?

[Anonymous No.3214104]

>>3212900
Yup. Every time you solve a captcha you're contributing to the loss of your own job.

[Anonymous No.3215135]

Art is dead, that's what the philosophers have been trying to tell us since long ago

[Anonymous No.3215166]

>>3215135
>art is dead
meme

[Anonymous No.3215170]

>>3215135
philosophy is dead, that's what the artists have been trying to tell us since long ago

[Anonymous No.3215171]

>>3215166

the art meme is dead

pic related only bouggwegegegeareruu
i can tolerate

[Anonymous No.3215173]

>>3215171

[Anonymous No.3215174]

>>3215173

art she is dead
forgive her
she is a fickle
little bitch

[Anonymous No.3215261]

Michelangelo is an anomaly in the greater scheme of things. To a degree, Rembrandt also but he didn't have that edge. We shouldn't even remember these two artists today but we do. There are countless prolific artists who we don't give a flying fuck about. Frescoes and statues littered all around that they've done. Their works, however great, are absolutely fucking meaningless to us.

Why?

To succeed in the art world you have to have a persona that is greater than life and adoration of the ruling class. From Da Vinci, to Pollock, to Warhol, to Hirst, you have people whose names remind you of their personality first, and their works second.

I use Da Vinci because his name has been whored out to make ample money, all without a focus on his work, but rather a focus on his "Genius". Pay attention to this, it's a running theme.

The ruling class has always used and continues to use the club-house method to control who is allegedly an "artist" and who isn't, and therefore who is "in" and who isn't. And this trickles down into the education system and the way people think.

Is there anything artistic about Pollock, Warhol, Hirst, or any other artist who doesn't actually create anything meaningful? The ruling class would have you believe that if you so much as raise this question, you lack culture, taste and money.

To the uncultured commoners like you and I, this is the name of the game. This is why so much of art education is absolute garbage. You must have an enigmatic air of pompous bullshit about you if you are to be given a passing grade. Painstakingly drew, painted, or sculpted the figure in front of you, each articulation flowing through the last? Sorry Bobby, it feels stiff. C+ for effort.

But, if you have a good enough description of why that pile of dog shit is not just a pile of dog shit, but is an allegory for life itself, and you convince the ruling class with your melodrama, then you my good sir are an artist. It is not about the work, it is about you.

[Anonymous No.3215265]

>>3215261

Ask yourself why would Michelangelo choose to be a pauper, when he of all people could have the adoration of both the commoners and the ruling class? Did he see something we didn't? Was he protesting against the ruling class at the time?

We look at David but we don't see Genius. We see Antiquity. We see Old Fashioned. We see big hands and a small flaccid dick. Oh why oh why did the Ancient Greeks prefer smaller penises is the popular question of the day, as we delve into some bullshit mythology to make sense of it. Who was the sculptor again? Oh yeah, that guy.

This is the crux of the problem. The number of people willing to forgo the riches of the world in favor of tirelessly working on their art day after day til they are old and brittle is in a very short supply. It always has been, but the hypocrisy of the price of Da Vinci's so-called "lost work" breaks all retardation barriers. I say "lost work" because for all intents and purposes even if it was a forgery, nobody gives a shit. The money has traded hands already.

The art world of today is a bullshit pyramid scheme driven by the ruling class and their gang of art brokers. Neither would know what art is, but they know that their own shit on a paper towel is to be flushed down the toilet, but that pile of dog shit over there is worth millions.

Absolute fucking rubbish.

Instead of contemplating why hardly anything in nature is symmetric and what that means to composition, we look at blank stained canvases and try to rationalize to ourselves what we are looking at is somehow artistic and worthy of adoration and our hard earned money.

All in the name of signaling to others that we too are destined to someday be part of the ruling class.

[Anonymous No.3215270]

>>3210126
penis in the middle

[Anonymous No.3215275]

>>3215265
Michelangelo was not a pauper. He made a very, very good living as an artist, and was well paid for the Sistine and the other great works - many of which he never finished. He died a millionaire, and left a sizable estate. He was also considered the most talented artist EVER while still alive, and was celebrated by everyone, especially in Florence. He HAD the adoration of the public and the ruling class, with works like The David on public display in Florence.

BTW, everything you wrote? Complete bullshit. You don't have a clue about Michelangelo and the world he lived in. He lived in a unique city state that colored his perception of the world, but he never turned down a commission from the ruling class. But you'd know about that, if you'd bothered to learn a single thing about him, instead of making up that he was a 'pauper", and then jerking off onto your fedora with absolute nonsense afterwards.

You should really learn an artist's actual life story, before neckbearding like this. You just look foolish.

[Anonymous No.3215282]

>>3215275
>In his manner of life he was most abstemious, being content when young with a little bread and wine while at his work, and until he had finished the Last Judgment he always waited for refreshment till the evening, when he had done his work. Though rich he lived poorly, never taking presents from any one. He took little sleep, but often at night he would rise to work, having made himself a paper cap, in the middle of which he could fix his candle, so that he could have the use of his hands. Vasari, who often saw this cap, noticed that he did not use wax candles, but candles made of goats' tallow, and so he sent him four bundles, which would be 40 lbs. His servant took them to him in the evening, and when Michelangelo refused to take them, he answered, "Sir, carrying them here has almost broken my arms, and I will not carry them back again; but there is some thick mud before your door in which they will stand straight enough, and I will set light to them all." Upon which Michelangelo answered, "Put them down here, then, for I will not have you playing tricks before my door." He told me that often in his youth he had slept in his clothes, too worn out with his labours to undress himself. Some have accused him of being avaricious, but they are mistaken, for he freely gave away his drawings and models and pictures, for which he might have obtained thousands of crowns.

[Anonymous No.3215287]

>>3215275

He HAD adoration Then the jews came along.

[Anonymous No.3215289]

>>3215282
None of this adds up to "pauper", you fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.3215298]

>>3215289
Nitpick all you want. I'm done getting baited by morons like you. It's your choice to pretend someone like him doesn't have a personality that is far more complementary to good art than the other charlatans I mentioned.

[Anonymous No.3215301]

>>3215298
Nitpicking? You got his ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE WRONG, YOU FUCKING TURD IN A FEDORA.

You're the same bloated fuckstick who's shitting up all of the threads with this nonsense, aren't you? Fucking knock it off. You're half retarded, to begin with. You're not smart, you're not insightful, and you're fucking boring. Go back to /b/, kid.

[Anonymous No.3215303]

>>3215301
>Mentions that Michelangelo chose to live like a poor man focusing exclusively on his work
>YOU GOT HIS ENTIRE LIFE WRONG

You're a fucking nunce.

And no I'm not that postmodern tard you're also getting triggered by.

Although with your attitude I'm sure just about everyone can piss you off.

Keep it up lad.

[Anonymous No.3215306]

>>3210118
There is no way to know it
Stupidosedere

[Anonymous No.3215312]

>>3215303
Being a cheapskate does not make him a pauper, you spastic chunk of poop. Do you even know what the word means?

Just shut the fuck up already.

[Anonymous No.3215315]

>>3215312
Add to the conversation or get the fuck out of the thread.

[Anonymous No.3215318]

This is the future of art

[Anonymous No.3215319]

>>3215318
Good dog? person not furry

[Anonymous No.3215321]

>>3215319
death

[Anonymous No.3215323]

>>3215321
the cool art

[Anonymous No.3215324]

>>3215323
not the future but good

[Anonymous No.3215359]

>>3215324
Why can't neoclassical be he future of art?

[Anonymous No.3215645]

>>3215324
>that foot
*inhales*
HAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.3215661]

>>3215645
why are you inhaling foots

[Anonymous No.3215675]

>>3215661
why wouldn't you

[Anonymous No.3215742]

>>3215301
>>3215303
Reading this entire argument in Stevie's voice from family guy

[Anonymous No.3216062]

>>3210118
look at the music industry
I think Art will be treated just like music is today.

[Anonymous No.3216071]

am i the future of art?

[Anonymous No.3216085]

>>3214037
Video games, music, television, film, books, etc.

[Anonymous No.3216096]

>>3210118
bitch please, the future of art is in the industry sometimes gets a lot of fun and epic pieces

[Anonymous No.3216097]

>>3216071
Yeah but unfortunately the future never comes.

[Anonymous No.3216111]

>>3216071
You're trash

[Anonymous No.3216557]

>>3216071
I hope not

[Anonymous No.3216611]

>>3210126
Art that would get to the top of Reddit and imgur pretty much. Damn

[Anonymous No.3216871]

OP asks about the future of painting as art, but the images supplied are just the trends of niche online communities such as tumblr.

Look at this list of "painters to watch" from last year
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-16-emerging-artists-to-watch-in-2016

You guys are way too wishful in expecting a Renaissance

[Anonymous No.3216886]

>>3216871
Collage is a joke and installation art is starting to die. There's a push in academia by the students against post-modern noise that's been growing in recent years and ateliers have been on the rise. There are more classically trained fine artists now than there were 10 years ago. Give it some time.

[Anonymous No.3216889]

>>3216871
Well, new art movements always start off as niche trends. Maybe it's time we saw giant paintings of furry porn in the met.

[Anonymous No.3216893]

>>3216889
I'm down.

[Anonymous No.3217177]

>>3210126
>Maybe the art that people care about will be art that has some kind of shock value or art that is presented in a special way.
That's what people said several decades ago. Since then there's been so much 'shock art' that it's become the norm, and there's literally nothing of shock value left to milk anymore

[Anonymous No.3217195]

>>3216886
>There are more classically trained fine artists now than there were 10 years ago.
Does not matter

For every one atelier student that spends a year just getting their charcoals to not float off the canvas, you have thousands of people too lazy to bother getting out of bed, looking for reasons to avoid thinking about their miserable existence and shifting the blame onto someone else. These people wouldn't know allegory if it hit them in the head, nevermind having an appreciation for fine art. They'll parrot vapid shit their friends tell them and their opinion will be of a clueless collective.

Also, any attempt to undo the damage done by the shift to modernism will be seen as a return to some patriarchal oppression. Yes, I had to play that card because at the end of the day that's what its about. Classical art training is ultimately a white man's sport, and the white man is the boogeyman of today. Next to blaming Russians for everything, of course.

As much as I'd like for there to be a return to the road that the old masters were on, there is no doubting that the reality we live in has aligned itself against that goal.

At the present, and in the foreseeable future, you make the choice to get into classical training because you have a personal connection to it, it's aesthetics and potentially it's meanings and values. But don't you fucking dare say you like tradition.

[Anonymous No.3217360]

>>3217195
They aren't making classical art with it, mostly just using the technique and theory to do something vaguely modernist. The results are aesthetic and often meaningful. Personally, I'd rather see >>3216889 but I just want to watch the world burn.