/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.3248100]

thoughts about this?

[Anonymous No.3248102]

>memorable
>profound
>sublime

lmao

[Anonymous No.3248105]

>>3248100
Can someoje post a hi-res version of the duck one?

[Anonymous No.3248111]

yeah, whatever you say m8

[Anonymous No.3248114]

>draw photographically

Maybe his mom thought so

[Anonymous No.3248123]

>>3248100
>right picture
>original, unexpected, memorable
k.

[Anonymous No.3248163]

I completely agree

[Anonymous No.3248175]

>>3248100
you gone get a lot of hate from here, just sayin

i agree as well. but i would add that comparing the two is genuinely nonsensical to begin with. the one has a linear purpose and a clear application and the other is thought provocing, ambiguous, has no direct purpose other than as a standalone piece of art.

[Anonymous No.3248178]

>>3248100
I hate these types of threads, anything that has to do with the word modern or fine art is nothing but stirring shit up and getting zero closure. So go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.3248181]

>>3248178
>I hate failing at engaging in a discussion and I hate my opinion being challanged.
ok

[Anonymous No.3248182]

>>3248114
>Willem_de_Dunning_Kruger.jpg

[Anonymous No.3248183]

>>3248100
idk, but I never liked the "he could do x, but choose not to" is like some defensive position to avoid criticism. If it "can stand on its own merit", why would that be relevant?
>technical trickery
>technical mastery
explain

[Anonymous No.3248200]

>>3248183
>idk, but I never liked the "he could do x, but choose not to" is like some defensive position to avoid criticism.
ok, cool logic. so how exactly would you be able to move on from boring shit-tier realism to the capability of abstraction in art?

[Anonymous No.3248206]

>>3248181
wow you're sure inspiring new discussions with your thoughtful posts
you dumb motherfucker. nobody ever changes his mind on this fucking board. they just strengthen their opinions

[Anonymous No.3248209]

>>3248200
by disregarding it entirely
Imagine the image you posted had a little footnote "Just in case, I can draw realism too"

[Anonymous No.3248211]

>>3248200

It's a fraudulent claim. Most of the modernist painters were actually garbage at painting realism.

[Anonymous No.3248230]

>>3248209
>>3248211
>realism is all that matters to me

and you illustration faggots complain that people call you stubborn and make a clear distinction between illustration and fine art ...
/ic/ is and remains a complete joke.

[Anonymous No.3248234]

>>3248230
learn to read, my friend

[Anonymous No.3248270]

>>3248230
Why are you here if you hate /ic/ so much. Do you get off on the hate?

[Anonymous No.3248276]

>I can't draw anything that looks halfway convincing, so I'll throw up on the paper and say it's up to the viewer!

[Anonymous No.3248296]

>>3248100
personally i like more those ducks in a bathroom than that fine art garbage

[Anonymous No.3248302]

>>3248100
i'm loath to value the opinion of someone who can't even spell "cutesy" correctly.

[Anonymous No.3248307]

[Anonymous No.3248312]

>>3248114
quick and easy debunk of OP.

[Anonymous No.3248322]

>>3248100
The points overall are bullshit, but in this case I happen to like the work on the right more than the left.

[Anonymous No.3248329]

>>3248100
Biased bullshit.
>stands on its own merit
>original and unique
>memorable
>story is subordinate
These are the worst ones though.

[Anonymous No.3248640]

>>3248100
The fact that the image on the right has nothing to say story wise and thus everyone looking at it will interpret it differently is not a positive. A piece of art SHOULD say something with confidence and clarity. If it doesn't, it's nothing but a glorified rorshach test for the pretentious wannabe intellectual.

[Anonymous No.3248665]

if /ic/ were a mountain climbing cesspit, it'd be like 'why did edmund hillary's diary sell for so much when he wasn't even that great a technical climber?'

[Anonymous No.3248667]

>>3248640
god you're dumb
nothing to say, and nothing to say storywise are different
ambiguity in art is not a bad thing, you fucking retard

say what you want about paintings like this, i don't like de kooning either, but don't use that opinion to foster excremental generalities about what art should be

[Anonymous No.3248679]

>>3248667
>nothing to say, and nothing to say storywise are different

Not in this case. It has nothing to say period. There is no message, no meaning. Go ahead, prove me wrong and tell me what this "painting" objectively has to say that isn't just your interpretation of it.

[Anonymous No.3248680]

>>3248100
>technical mastery
>but more subtle

[Anonymous No.3248681]

>>3248114
He could """draw photographically""" but he could never draw ducks in a bathroom.
Such is the life of a fine artist.

[Anonymous No.3248685]

modern art is trash

[Anonymous No.3248712]

>>3248100
>forced vs obscure
>forgetable vs memorable
Can someone explain this meme? I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.3248717]

>>3248200
> ok, cool logic
> he could keep himself clean but decided to shit on himself anyway
I suppose that is indeed a relevant information to consider when evaluating a person performing retarded shit. Or doing anything, really.

[Anonymous No.3248726]

btw its the same guy making all these threads, he'll get bored in a few weeks

[Anonymous No.3248804]

>>3248100
>master illustrator

[Anonymous No.3248809]

>>3248100
Who is "this artist"?
I find the ducks in a bathroom absolutely more memorable than whatever the coon tried to do.

[Anonymous No.3248811]

>>3248640
>The fact that the image on the right has nothing to say story wise and thus everyone looking at it will interpret it differently is not a positive. A piece of art SHOULD say something with confidence and clarity. If it doesn't, it's nothing but a glorified rorshach test for the pretentious wannabe intellectual.

I understand your frustration and the expectations you put into contemporary art. You want to feel safe; you want clear answer and nothing ambiguous or mysterious. I can understand it, but I completely disagree with it.

[Anonymous No.3248812]

>>3248809
>I find the ducks in a bathroom absolutely more memorable than whatever the coon tried to do.
>muh expectations, taste, opinion
And someone else will feel the opposite way, for different reasons. What are you trying to prove?

[Anonymous No.3248815]

>>3248812
Nothing, I just want to know who the artist of the ducks was.

[Anonymous No.3248821]

>>3248100
Contemporary art tries to be relevspecial ant by pretending to be deep, when it is really not much different from "low art".

You go to an university, do the same "original pieces" after that with the help of connections you get into a gallery or two where when you have some luck get bough by some art collectors thinking it will cost a lot more in the future.

It isn't too different from buying some limited run plastic crap and trying to play speculator with it.

I wouldn't mind contemporary art if they weren't hiding behind the big intellectual mask and just admit it they are as material as the rest.

[Anonymous No.3248823]

>>3248211
True. We need to make a infographic for quick point proving when anons start claiming their bestie abstract expressionist is a master draughtsman.

[Anonymous No.3248835]

>>3248821
Many digital fags on /ic/ say that. Following that logic, personal experience is ridiculous and should be frowned upon.

– "Why do you like that abstract painting? Just because it's abstract and ambiguous? That's bullshit, you like it because art historians / jews / curators / smart people told you so."

– "Why do you like that movie? Just because it's a movie? And because you enjoyed it? That's just ridiculous. You only like it because other people said it's good."

This is the standard argument against contemporary art on /ic/.

[Anonymous No.3248837]

>>3248835
All I am saying that the big difference between fine art and other forms of art is not that clear cut.

[Anonymous No.3248849]

>>3248100
The fact that the chart confuses contemporary and fine art makes me care about it that much less

[Anonymous No.3248851]

>>3248849
>implying abstract painting isn't fine art
lmao
let's have you topple over all definitions, right on!
>same materials, same workflow, different topics
>but it's not fine art, because I say so!

[Anonymous No.3248906]

>>3248100
>anonymize the artist on the left but leave the name of the one on the right as if it isn't an unexceptional garden-variety shitsmear of a painting
really nice.

[Anonymous No.3248911]

>>3248100
How do people not get tired of bashing modern art? After looking at realist paintings/illustrations all the time don't you want to open your mind to something new?

[Anonymous No.3248919]

>>3248911
I guess I just don't understand modern art.

[Anonymous No.3248920]

>>3248911
what's new? once you have seen one pile of nonsense you've seen them all

[Anonymous No.3248931]

>>3248815
Monte Dolack

[Anonymous No.3248934]

>>3248911
(post)modern art can't satisfy people who enjoy real art on any level because it's not remotely the same thing. It's like asking someone who's really into classical music if they never get bored of it and want to open their mind to noisecore.

[Anonymous No.3248939]

>>3248934
>noisecore
no need to go retardedly edgy.
math rock would be enough. also, you seem to underestimate the horizon of classical music folks. a lot of classical singers actually don't listen quite as much to classical music as they listen to modern music.

just because you find modern art indigestible, doesn't mean other people can't appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.3248940]

If I met any of you guys in real life and we'd be discussing art, I would just burst into laughter. It's like fucking cleaning ladies trying to talk about rocket science. It's just cringeworty and embarrassing.
The contempt you little shitbrains have for modern art mostly comes from your enviousness and lack of skills. You defend your stance of "individual styles are bad", because most of you follow down the path of faceless learning-by-the-book … pirated pdfs of Loomis, Proko and the other faggots you grab from the web. You are creative lemmings, all going down the same fucking road. No wonder you sorry cunts are so envious and malevolent towards contemporary art. It just doesn't mix, concept art illustration shit and fine art, it's like oil on water.

[Anonymous No.3248949]

>>3248939
no, noisecore was a far better analogy, it still has in common with classical music rhythm, melody and harmony just done in a different style, noisecore is a rejection of melody rythm and harmony(I think noisecore is stuff like merzbow?) classical and post-modern art have as much in common as mozart and merzbow

[Anonymous No.3248952]

>>3248939
But in this allegory, modern music would not be equivalent to postmodern art. Any music genre that has some form of melodic rhythm and some degree of skill requirement would be one of the many different genres of representational art. The music equivalent of postmodern art is not some obscure rock genre, but only non-rhythmic noise- and grindcore or avantgarde screeching or something like that.

[Anonymous No.3248955]

>>3248940
You're right, you should stick to heaping clumps of praise on the "fine art" of Willem de Dunning Kruger or Chris Ofecalphiliac with your fellow pedants in whatever pretentious cringe cult of aging hippies you crawled out of. Piss off from /ic/ already MOMAron, jesus!

[Anonymous No.3248960]

>>3248940
>It just doesn't mix, concept art illustration shit and fine art, it's like oil on water.

But actual fine artists hate modern art the most for completely ruining the reputation of their profession. Concept art and illustration have far more in common with representational fine art than what representational fine art has in common with contemporary modern """""art"""".

[Anonymous No.3249017]

>>3248960
>But actual fine artists hate modern art the most for completely ruining the reputation of their profession. Concept art and illustration have far more in common with representational fine art than what representational fine art has in common with contemporary modern """""art"""".

true. but i've had a chat with one of the guys here who hates modern art from the core and he admitted he doesn't even go to fine art exhibition or museums. "can't be bothered", was his reply. if you don't have any base of comparison for anything that is going on at the moment, neither a knowledge of 20th century art movements or what contemporary art is about today, you aren't in any position to judge. a basic knowledge of the art history that ends at impressionism is not enough to talk about contemporary art. "i don't care, it's ALL shit" - is not enough.

>>3248955
>Willem de Dunning Kruger
you so funny

[Anonymous No.3249018]

>>3248940
copypasta

>>3248955
>Piss off from /ic/ already MOMAron, jesus!
I'll stay around an extra month, just for you!

[Anonymous No.3249029]

I'm really saddened by how there is finally someone to bring some breath of fresh air here to break up the monotony of classical paintings, concept art and cartoons and you get chased out. I wish there was a contemporary art general to discuss art and discover new art.

[Sage No.3249031]

>>3248952
This anon gets it.

[Anonymous No.3249040]

>>3248940
>envious towards contemporary art

That is a funny one.

[Anonymous No.3249045]

>>3248952
nope, i disagree. noisecore is cacophonous, has an in-your-face aggression without aesthetic going on. the equivalent to that would in turn be something visually obscene, aggressive, bothering and completely unaesthetical.
I'm not a particular fan of DeKooning, but he worked very structured and meticulous. even the gestural, quick brush strokes in his collages are calculated and there is at least one work that he did twice with almost completely identical gestures like that.
the "Erased DeKooning" by Robert Rauschenberg to me is an extremely funny, self-ironic and inpressive conceptual idea. Not all contemporary art is made by screeching LGBTQ feminazis who are in gender studies and performance art.


>>3248940
this being out of context is way too edgy for this particular thread. it was one of the last responses in a heated argument in another thread. (then again, with everyone dealing cheap insults right away, being edgy and responding with funny anime memes, there's just too much wrong anyways)

[Anonymous No.3249053]

>>3249017
> "i don't care, it's ALL shit" - is not enough.

But isn't that the exact same thing you just did regarding concept art and illustration? You don't seem to have any interest nor knowledge about these fields, yet you were perfectly fine to judge it all as shit in your previous post.

[Anonymous No.3249057]

>>3249053
>You don't seem to have any interest nor knowledge about these fields
awesome dude, your skills at assuming shit is over 9000. i've read up on concept art and i've done my studies on several fields, including the history of matte painting, concept art for movies, set design, character design, 3d, sketchup, maja, blender, 3DCAD, architectural design materials (actual models, digital 2D collage etc)
it's baffling to me how some people on here confuse what they do with fine art. a movie poster is not fine art, a concept design landscape is not fine art. but some here are upset, because they want to be treated like fine art craftsmen. it's not the same thing. but at the same time, they just love to shit on modern art without knowing jackshit about it.
i love great concept art, like the matte paintings for star wards, planet of the apes, encounter of the third kind. i enjoy great character design and cartoons as well. the fact of the matter is that there are thousands of basement dwellers waiting in line for "muh commissions" as they try to make it in concept art. and because they can't get any, they get bitter and frustrated and shit on the neighbors lawn.

[Anonymous No.3249060]

>>3249053
>You don't seem to have any interest nor knowledge about these fields
awesome dude, your skills at assuming shit is over 9000. i've read up on concept art and i've done my studies on several fields, including the history of matte painting, concept art for movies, set design, character design, 3d, sketchup, maja, blender, 3DCAD, architectural design materials (actual models, digital 2D collage etc)
it's baffling to me how some people on here confuse what they do with fine art. a movie poster is not modern art, a concept design landscape is not modern art. but some here are upset, because they want to be treated like modern artists / fine artists. it's not the same thing. but at the same time, they just love to shit on modern art without knowing jackshit about it.
i love great concept art, like the matte paintings for star wards, planet of the apes, encounter of the third kind. i enjoy great character design and cartoons as well. the fact of the matter is that there are thousands of ngmi basement dwellers waiting in line daily for "muh commissions" as they try to make it in concept art. and because they can't get any, they get bitter and frustrated and shit on the neighbors lawn.

[Anonymous No.3249077]

>>3249060
>because they want to be treated like modern artists / fine artists. it's not the same thing

I don't understand why you insist to group fine artists and modern artists together when they are the ones who are the furthest apart. Also, NO ONE wants to be treated like modern artists. That's a big part of the reason for their ridicule. Actual artists of all fields have become embarassed to call themselves artists because people might associate them with modern "artists". This especially hurts representational fine artists who really want to have nothing to do with conceptual modern art.
.
>they just love to shit on modern art without knowing jackshit about it.

The problem with modern art and why everyone is ridiculing it is because it doesn't have the capability to speak for itself. It needs people like you defending it with drawn out essays on why everyone else is wrong and you're right. This sort of thing is very counter-intiuitive to a visual medium. Basically pro modern art arguments always boil down to "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"

[Anonymous No.3249084]

Right now I get the impression that the problem people have with appreciating non-realist art is that they are too uptight. Instead of just enjoying art with an open mind they instantly judge it: "it's just smears of paint; it's just some lines; this doesn't take any skill; it's ugly; why is this artist successful". And when someone explains the art to them with colorful words they respond with "it's pretentious". Non-realist art is confusing to them. Realist art is safe. Even if you don't understand what the painting depicts or expresses you can still appreciate the visible skill that went into the painting.

[Anonymous No.3249088]

>>3249084
>Right now I get the impression that the problem people have with appreciating non-realist art is that they are too uptight.
this feels like having a scat fetishist call me a prude

[Anonymous No.3249090]

>>3249084
>And when someone explains the art to them with colorful words they respond with "it's pretentious"

That's the problem right there though. There is nothing to explain, it's visual art. If the vast majority of people look at something and think "it's just smears of paint; it looks like shit" then that is their genuine impression of said art and for them, that's all the artist managed to convey through his artwork. In a way, it's you modern art people who are afraid and want things to be safe. You need the explanation, the written essay before you know what you should think, you are afraid of the artwork speaking for itself and letting the audience decide what they think about it on their own.

[Anonymous No.3249091]

>>3249084
Could you please elaborate a bit more on what you understand as non-realist art?
Because there's a lot of art that wouldn't qualify as realism but won't get bashed here.

>Even if you don't understand what the painting depicts or expresses you can still appreciate the visible skill that went into the painting.
But what if it doesn't look like any skill went into it?
Then you can't understand it, nor appreciate the craft which is the case with many modern paintings like the ones dekooning did.

So, what is there to appreciate? What point does it have?

[Anonymous No.3249094]

>>3249090
To follow up on this, this also explains why the modern art world has such a culture of idol-worshipping, far moreso than any other area of art. The big, established name is safe. DeKooning has already been approved by your peers, so it's safe to like his work. Some random no-name would never get the same fierce defense for their smears of paint because with them, you don't know what you are supposed to think. They might be a genuis or a complete hack, you will never know unless other people tell you.

[Anonymous No.3249097]

>>3249084

exactly. most of the people here who shit on modern art and abstract art – (they take the entrylevel-tier Pollock as the scapegoat all the time) – have fixed ideas of what they want to see. if their expectations aren't met ("color blobs, that a monkey could have made hurr durr!") they stamp it as "typical modern art". generalization is strong around here. yes, there is shit installation and concept art around, a lot of it. but there is a lot of good painting around.

realism-crusaders here instantly reject the idea that painting can also be other things beside representational. the paint itself can become the subject of a painting. oil paint has a body, can be molded a certain way, can be layered, and the layers can interact with each other and the lighting situation. you can make the impasto type streaks of color in a Rembrandt the subject of a series of abstract paintings. a portrait can have weight, light, composition; if you take away the representational expectation, an abstract painting can still show weight, light-darkness, depth and composition.

some anons here even answer to modern art discussions with quick, shitty drawings in photoshop saying "See? I can do it?", which comes close to a beginner cook in a hotel kitchen, flinging a sandcastle bucket on the table and saying "Look! I can bake a cake, too!" it only proves that you are ignorant and retarded.

[Anonymous No.3249098]

>>3248100
>looks like work
>bad
but wait, there is more
>right and left brain analogy

[Anonymous No.3249099]

SAuce : freelancer and bfa and hobbyist

No matter how deep modern art can get it rings shallow on 2 accords

Deception and hot ass bitches

Even kinkade is deceiving you at some level into thinking that the paint arranged on the canvas is not actually a house in the woods

And yknow were people apes not philosophers so we like a da tittiez

[Anonymous No.3249100]

>>3249098
>>looks like work
>>bad
>but wait, there is more
>>right and left brain analogy

Paul Noble, finalist at the Tate Britain Turner Prize
looks like work
is badass, weird modern art
right and left brain + pineal gland

[Anonymous No.3249102]

>>3249099
Fun fact mother nature gave women tits so we wouldnt doggystyle them like out chimp brethren

So as to form bonding by looking at each other

She wants you to look, but you gotta be stable first, and if shes not a virgin shell want the whole wedding shebang

[Anonymous No.3249103]

>>3248100
so shitting on a canvas makes me a 'master illustrator' now?

[Anonymous No.3249104]

>>3249100

What

All i read was blankity blank tate

Tates garbage man
Thats a murican opinion 4 ya

[Anonymous No.3249105]

>>3249097

I think you just have to accept the fact that people just arent interested and the board is focused on realism and fundies in general. Why fight an uphill battle?

[Anonymous No.3249107]

>>3249104
>>3249100
>Tates garbage man
>Thats a murican opinion 4 ya
ngmi

[Anonymous No.3249108]

>>3249105
>realism and fundies
jerking off and toys, yup
childrens playground

[Anonymous No.3249118]

>>3248100
>illustration
>boring

im actually triggered

[Anonymous No.3249119]

>>3249118
>triggered
snowflake talk

[Anonymous No.3249125]

>>3249119
um sweatie :) i can say triggered bc OP gave me ptsd

[Anonymous No.3249128]

>>3249119
Would you prefer offended

[Anonymous No.3249132]

>>3249128
>>3249125
evidentially, i would prefer to say "piqued"

[Anonymous No.3249133]

>>3248911
>After looking at realist paintings/illustrations all the time
>all the time
Nigger, modern art has been practically ubiquitous since the 60's. We haven't seen much realistic/classic art in a VERY long time.
Modern art IS THE STANDARD. "Opening our minds" would be pretty much accepting (and asking for) realistic art at this point.

[Anonymous No.3249143]

>>3248175
>thought provocing
Does it really provoke any thoughts? Like any more than the one with the ducks?

[Anonymous No.3249148]

>>3249143
>Does it really provoke any thoughts?
Yeah. How old was the child who drew that shit and how much his asshole abusive parent got for it.

[Anonymous No.3249150]

>>3249148
Don't be edgy, I am asking seriously. It's a well-put piece of abstract art,but is there really anything thought provoking abou it?

[Anonymous No.3249159]

>>3249150
Alright. To be honest, it doesn't provoke any though at all.
The random strokes don't provoke anything on me because there's nothing tangent in the canvas. There's no form or value or anything recognizable as a tangent element.
I can't detect anything relatable in the picture, therefore, all I feel is indifference.
It's like looking at dust in the floor. It just doesn't struck a chord.

There.

[Anonymous No.3249161]

>>3249159
Thanks for an honest answer.

[Anonymous No.3249164]

>>3249161
No prob.

[Anonymous No.3249166]

>>3249108

Yep, nothing for you here. Byee modernist cuck

[Anonymous No.3249168]

>>3248100
>trying to justify one's tastes with intellect, like everything in life
Neither one is my style.

[Anonymous No.3249169]

>>3249159
>struck a chord.
you walk past a construction site. someone is striking metal and it makes a sound. the sound is rythmical. *cling - cling - cling - cling* it isn't music, but it could be used as a metronome. there is a rythme, there is a particular sound at a particular pitch / attack / sustain / echo. is it music? it can be sampled. the circumstances matter.
an abstract painting like OP pic has a rythme, deals with structures, evokes depth / annihilates depth, maybe both. is it a good painting? does it "strike a chord"? for you, it doesn't. for someone else, it does.

>>3249166
hi, baby boy. did mommy change your diapers yet? afraid of moving out?

[Anonymous No.3249179]

you need high IQ to understand modern art
contemporary art requires not only high IQ but MFA degree too

[Anonymous No.3249180]

>>3249169
A sample isn't music. You're actually making the case for that abstract painting worse.

[Anonymous No.3249181]

>>3249179
this argument is going in circles on /ic/
over and over again
>muh IQ, muh snobbishness

yes, if you don't know shit about art history up until mid 20th century, you won't understand contemporary art. you admit to being a lazy, uninformed philistine. get over it.

[Anonymous No.3249184]

>>3249181
And if I do understand it and still don't care about it, because by now it is a boring and pointless idea?

[Anonymous No.3249185]

>>3249184
then, you don't like it or don't care about it.
and I don't give a flying fuck either.

[Anonymous No.3249187]

>l-look I know art history!
u bragging about knowledge of art history in every thread. It doesn't make you draw better lmao
i studied art history in uni too. Surprise! But not ur shitty American art history

[Anonymous No.3249189]

>>3249133
>We haven't seen much realistic/classic art in a VERY long time.

Who is we? Where are you looking? On this board almost all posts are about admiring realist painting and striving to be able to draw realistically. It's the same on all the art forums I saw on the internet.

There are still a lot of artists who paint realistically.

[Anonymous No.3249193]

>>3249187
>ur shitty American art history
>ur AMERICAN art history
implying

if you really did study art history in uni, you wouldn't dismiss abstract painting because "oh, it doesn't represent anything and isn't realism, so the artist must've been bad at anatomy!"

[Anonymous No.3249194]

I read "The Phenomenology of Spirit". Ask any questions.

[Anonymous No.3249197]

>>3249194
what is your favorite color?

[Anonymous No.3249205]

>>3249193
>you wouldn't dismiss abstract painting
Sorry but not every country drown into modern art swamp
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVrAXVCIo1g

[Anonymous No.3249234]

>>3249189
Cameras do it better and faster.

[Anonymous No.3249241]

>>3249107

O shi nvm i was thinking of the turner award

[Anonymous No.3249267]

>>3248100
According to this, shitty drawn porn with extreme fetishes is fine art because it lacks details but is memorable.

[Anonymous No.3249268]

>>3249267
Kyle had potential.

[Anonymous No.3249297]

>>3249197

[Anonymous No.3249301]

>>3249205
>drown into modern art swamp
chorosho, Dimitri! Your communist propaganda art and social realism in WWII poster quality is out of date now.
I'm sorry you suffered from the reactionary teaching at your uni. Eastern art of today has a strange, industrial vibe that is mostly depressing

[Anonymous No.3249311]

>>3248100

So you think Modern Art is better than Representational Art? By what measurable or objective standard?

[Anonymous No.3249355]

>>3249311
Not OP, but if realism isn't coupled with a worthwhile idea, it is pointless. drawing a car super realistically is a nice exercise, but a photo can represent that car better and takes much less time.
you can realize some very intriguing concept with hyperrealism
>(pic: Ron Mueck)
, so there's no argument that in order to create anigmatic art, you somehow "shouldn't" take it to perfection in a representational manner.

Mondern art isn't any "better" than representational art. It simply can't be, because you are comparing two different things. Chuck Close is in a way doing representational artworks, but stylized and almost in a prosaic way (portraits upfront, facing camera, highly upscaled).
Most concept art up on /ic/ in the best case is meant to one day end up helping to create a film, animation, cartoon, storyboard of some kind or a book. It is either functional as it is meant to go along with a certain pre-production process, helps visualizing the final product or in the case of a childrens book or graphic novel, it ends up as part of the story.
A contemporary painting is completely self-contained, it carries everything you need to know about it. Ideally, the artist doesn't have to be present to explain it. But you will most likely enjoy it more, if you have a good understanding of where painting has gone since impressionism, surrealism and dada.
– (of course, with some of the more troubled fields of art today, especially purely political works, installations, performances, "protest art", which typically come with a 300 page abstract on social studies, supression and general whining, lacking aesthetics, this isn't the case) –
Photography has proven to be a way better means to create realism long ago. Painting is freed from the premise of having to accurately represent reality and explore ideas that roam between reality and abstraction. If the thought of abstract works is still a pain to you, that is your reality & expectation and that's fine

[Anonymous No.3249358]

>>3249311
Not OP, but if realism isn't coupled with a worthwhile idea, it is pointless. drawing a car super realistically is a nice exercise, but a photo can represent that car better and takes much less time.
you can realize some very intriguing concepts in (hyper)realism
>(pic: Ron Mueck)
, so there's no argument that in order to create iconographic art, you somehow "shouldn't" take it to perfection in a representational manner.

Mondern art isn't any better than representational art. It simply can't be, because you are comparing two different things. Chuck Close is in a way doing representational artworks, but stylized and almost in a prosaic way (portraits upfront, facing camera, highly upscaled).
Most concept art up on /ic/ in the best case is meant to one day end up helping to create a film, animation, cartoon, storyboard of some kind or a book. It is either functional as it is meant to go along with a certain pre-production process, helps visualizing the final product or in the case of a childrens book or graphic novel, it ends up as part of the story.
A contemporary painting is completely self-contained, it carries everything you need to know about it. Ideally, the artist doesn't have to be present to explain it. But you will most likely enjoy it more, if you have a good understanding of where painting has gone since impressionism, surrealism etc.
– (of course, with some of the more troubled fields of art today, especially purely political works, installations, performances, "protest art", which typically come with a 300 page abstract on social studies, supression and general whining, lacking aesthetics, this isn't the case) –
Photography has proven to be a way better means to create realism long ago. Painting is freed from the premise of having to accurately represent reality and explore ideas that roam between reality and abstraction. If the thought of abstract works is still a pain to you, that is your reality & expectation and that's fine

[Anonymous No.3249384]

>>3249355
>Not OP, but if realism isn't coupled with a worthwhile idea, it is pointless. drawing a car super realistically is a nice exercise, but a photo can represent that car better and takes much less time.

It's not pointless. People draw realistic cars for industrial design. The techniques can still be admired by an artist seeking to improve regardless of whether there is or isn't a narrative in the drawing of the realistic car. People can still use realism to learn how to draw imaginative realism, which you can't take with photographs and that is where realism seems to be moving nowadays with popular media. It's all a matter of perspective.

>Photography has proven to be a way better means to create realism long ago. Painting is freed from the premise of having to accurately represent reality and explore ideas that roam between reality and abstraction. If the thought of abstract works is still a pain to you, that is your reality & expectation and that's fine

If you think realism is just about capturing reality accurately the same way a photograph does, you're missing the points. Look at my former point above. There is something worthwhile to study, the techniques and brushwork, even if the realistic painting is missing narrative.

>Painting is freed from the premise of having to accurately represent reality and explore ideas that roam between reality and abstraction.

Ironic that abstract expressionism hold so much value in the paint and act of painting, yet dismiss all representational art by saying a photograph can do it better and therefore failing to see anything beyond subject matter, i.e. the paint and the act or craft itself. If you believe all representational art is a mere attempt at being a photograph, then that is wrong. Another problem is people like OP who spams /ic/, who seems to believe that what they like and their perspective is the "better" one when abstract expressionist pieces are too subjective to measure "goodness".

[Anonymous No.3249393]

>>3249384
>If you believe all representational art is a mere attempt at being a photograph, then that is wrong.
learn to fucking read and stop hurling strawman arguments.

[Anonymous No.3249407]

>>3249393
>learn to fucking read and stop hurling strawman arguments.

Relax man, don't need to get pissy. If you learned to read yourself, you would know I said "if", because your whole post is lead me to believe you are discounting all realisms to pursuit of photo-realism. If you read you own comments, you would've realized that.

To quote from you:

>Not OP, but if realism isn't coupled with a worthwhile idea, it is pointless. drawing a car super realistically is a nice exercise, but a photo can represent that car better and takes much less time.

>Photography has proven to be a way better means to create realism long ago.

[Anonymous No.3249410]

>>3249358
But the techniques of drawing realistically can apply to concept unique for every artist.

I think you're overlooking the value realism can add to an image. A lot of artists have a world inside of them. for example a flower from a foreign planet can be depicted in a plethora of ways but if the artists intention is to transport you even for a second to that foreign planet and trick you to see it as is.

Those techniques can be invaluable

[Anonymous No.3249421]

>>3249268
Ungh... so fine.

[Anonymous No.3249428]

>>3249384
Don't know why the link was crossed out, but I was responding to: >>3249358

[Anonymous No.3249429]

>>3248100
>>3249179
Wait, is "Modern Art" the Pickle Rick of the art world?

[Anonymous No.3249447]

I just hate abstract art, no matter if it's paintings, music or literature. It strikes me as low-effort, pretentious and shallow.
>You just don't get it
Goodmeme

[Anonymous No.3249525]

>>3249179
Haha is this real?

[Aynonomus No.3249585]

>>3248100
It's a tad Biased, So I can't take it seriously

[Anonymous No.3249605]

>>3249189
As far as I can see the only person even bringing realism into question is OP and fine art defender(s?). People can appreciate cartoonish and other not particularly realistic depictions, but putting complete abstraction and realism that are like two end points on a spectrum as the *only* two states of art and mark anything that goes against abstraction as defending "realism" is a bit much.

[Anonymous No.3249626]

>>3249410
>a flower from a foreign planet
fantasy dreamland

[Anonymous No.3249635]

>>3249447
>I just hate abstract art
>>3248183
>"he could do x, but choose not to" is like some defensive position to avoid criticism
>>3248206
>nobody ever changes his mind on this fucking board. they just strengthen their opinions
>>3248209
>Imagine the image you posted had a little footnote "Just in case, I can draw realism too"
>>3248211
>Most of the modernist painters were actually garbage at painting realism.
>>3248665
>if /ic/ were a mountain climbing cesspit, it'd be like 'why did edmund hillary's diary sell for so much when he wasn't even that great a technical climber?'
>>3248685
>modern art is trash
>>3248726
>btw its the same guy making all these threads, he'll get bored in a few weeks
>>3248821
>I wouldn't mind contemporary art if they weren't hiding behind the big intellectual mask
>>3248911
>How do people not get tired of bashing modern art? After looking at realist paintings/illustrations all the time don't you want to open your mind to something new?
>>3248920
>once you have seen one pile of nonsense you've seen them all
>>3248934
>(post)modern art can't satisfy people who enjoy real art
>>3249088
>this feels like having a scat fetishist call me a prude
>>3249104
>Tates garbage man
>Thats a murican opinion 4 ya
>>3249105
>people just arent interested and the board is focused on realism and fundies in general.

>>3249189
>Who is we? Where are you looking? On this board almost all posts are about admiring realist painting and striving to be able to draw realistically. It's the same on all the art forums I saw on the internet.

>>3249410
>for example a flower from a foreign planet can be depicted in a plethora of ways but if the artists intention is to transport you even for a second to that foreign planet
>a flower from another planet
>a flower. from another planet.

the state of this board.

[Anonymous No.3249636]

>>3249635
Did you have a mental breakdown or something? What was the purpose of this post?

[Anonymous No.3249637]

>>3249636
obviously lol

[Anonymous No.3249655]

>>3249636
it's a summary of pretty much every /ic/ discussion whether abstract art is legit.

there's the ones who say "I hate abstract art, it's all the same"
there's those who say you should keep an open mind and not impose your expectations of representation on it
there are the usual trolls, who deflect from the main subject
and the ones who constantly blurt out only one falsified argument ("all modern art is CIA invention, lololol!")

and no one is ready to challenge their own position.

[Anonymous No.3249662]

>>3249655
isn't that the fun of it? everything apart from the drawthreads on /ic/ and maybe the question thread is side discussion, so you're just supposed to annoy people i think, and trick them into asking you to post merc_wip

[Anonymous No.3249675]

>>3248811

I don't think anyone is frustrated because of the painting itself but by the people claiming it has value.

[Anonymous No.3249682]

>>3249675
ok. so from now on, if someone says "Oh that song reminds me of xy and I like it" – I will respond: "That's bullshit, you are bullshit! It doesn't remind anyone of anything, you only repeat what smart people say. Stop liking that song!"

[Anonymous No.3249693]

>>3249682

Whatever makes you feel good man

Also nobody thinks you're repeating what smart people say.

[Anonymous No.3249772]

>>3249635

[Anonymous No.3249779]

>>3249682
No, it's the exact opposite actually. Someone is hearing a jackhammer go off nearby from some construction site and says "damn, that's fucking noisy and annoying" and you respond by trying to convince them that what they are hearing is actually beautiful music and they need to open up their mind to appreciate it.

[Anonymous No.3249894]

>mfw postmodernism was created by CIA to battle communism
>mfw hippies pretend to get the meaning of those pieces

[Anonymous No.3249942]

>>3249894
i fucking hate hippies and communist

[Anonymous No.3250027]

>>3249772
this song is made mostly from several otherwise unpleasent sound samples. the same concept applies to some of abstract paintings. they feature patters, structures, familiar haptic elements that are part of the paintings process. it can be about a balance between chaos and order. you completely and wilfully misunderstood my point.

https://youtu.be/nF99kdCUpAg?t=7m15s

[Anonymous No.3250028]

>>3249894
flatearther detected
how many tinfoil hats do you use in a month?

[Anonymous No.3250049]

>>3250028
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Director of CIA at that time also confirmed it this year

postmodernism wouldn't be as big if it wasn't for this

[Anonymous No.3250052]

>>3250049
>>3249894
>makes all modern art stupeed lol lmao you are all stupeed!
literal child

[Anonymous No.3250179]

>>3249626
Imaginary alien flora is more interesting to contemplate than Dali's limp dick, at least.

[Anonymous No.3250184]

>>3250179
oooh, some's read the erectile dysfunction meme about Dali's weird crutches in the paintings! so wow

[Anonymous No.3250197]

[Anonymous No.3250217]

>>3250049
>American Modern Art
ultralul

[Anonymous No.3250221]

>>3250197

another they-paint-cgart-in-nebrasca critic

[Anonymous No.3250225]

>>3250221
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKCrOLcDbjE

[guy No.3250229]

it would have a better chance of making its point if the right didn't look like an exercise in making triangles with paint and a butterknife

[Anonymous No.3250237]

>>3250197
on a board of people who say that davinci was shit at painting --> >>3250118, reasoning won't have any effect

[Anonymous No.3250238]

>>3250237
That finger is pointing up their asses in place of their faces.

[Anonymous No.3250246]

>>3249635
>(you) everybody
>>the state of this board

[Anonymous No.3250247]

>>3250237
But they're right at two things: the standarts of realism have shifted since the days of you're, for better or worse. And, DaVinci wouldn't get the job in the entertainment industry today.

[Anonymous No.3250250]

>>3250237
>>3250237
But they're right at two things: the standarts of realism have shifted since the days of yore, for better or worse. And, DaVinci wouldn't get the job in the entertainment industry today.

[Anonymous No.3250253]

>>3250247
Hitler would probably get into art uni today and become a rightwing cuck.
Vlad Tepec would probably be chief advisor in Guantanamo today.
Balthus would probably draw shoota today.
A Neanderthal would probably be a happy Trump voter today.

[Anonymous No.3250274]

>>3248100
reminder that this is considered fine art and anyone who doesn't understand that illustration is for brainlets needs to be sat down and have an important talk about the history of art.

[Anonymous No.3250356]

>>3250027
so you are saying I could take modern art, and rearrange into a cohesive painting it so that it isn't shit? I agree I suppose

[Anonymous No.3250360]

>>3250356
>so you are saying I could take it modern art it, and rearrange it into a cohesive painting it so that it isn't shit it?
english please

[Anonymous No.3250758]

>left: fun art
>right: pretentious chicken scratch

[Anonymous No.3250774]

>>3250274
fine art is dead and so is its meaning, which it never had.

[Anonymous No.3250818]

>>3250274
The line between representational fine art and illustration has always been rather blurry. The line between representational fine art like that image you posted and garbage conceptual modern art is like night and day. You desperately trying to make this some illustration vs real fine art argument isn't going to work because anyone who cares about fine art also appreciates beautifully done illustrations and vice versa. And they both laugh at conceptual "fine" """""art"""" equally.