Is art really subjective, or are we really just a bunch of pretentious fuck?

[Anonymous No.4274481]

>the 11-Year-Old Art Prodigy Whose Paintings Sell for $150,000

[Anonymous No.4274482]

[Anonymous No.4274484]

Value is subjective.
Appeal is subjective.
Art is whatever the body of authority of the time says it is.

[Anonymous No.4274485]

>>4274481
Better than a banana taped to a fucking wall.

[Anonymous No.4274489]

This is just another gimmick for the money laundering carnival

[Anonymous No.4274494]

>>4274481
>Chu first picked up a paintbrush after begging his mother, who owns an art gallery in Vietnam, to allow him to paint with his older brothers.
>his mother, who owns an art gallery

[Anonymous No.4274495]

>>4274489
How do I become a clown for this carnival?

[Anonymous No.4274498]

>>4274485
Possibly the only instance I’d defend this art. You are right sir.

[Anonymous No.4274631]

>>4274482
That's cool but this is all just because he's a kid displaying abnormally good aesthetic sense for his age. If someone over 16 made that no one would care outside of their friends and family.

[Anonymous No.4274635]

>>4274482
>masterworks
>prodigy

wow cool i'd love to see his technical pieces i bet they're fantastic :^)

[Anonymous No.4274640]

https://bradleymurray.ca/hume-of-the-standard-taste-pdf/

[Anonymous No.4274650]

>>4274640
>david hume
Ill take kant instead

[Anonymous No.4274675]

>>4274494
this. every fucking time

[Anonymous No.4274681]

>>4274631
>abnormally good aesthetic sense for his age
Are you sure? I remember reading that almost all kids have a vastly superior sense of composition compared to an untrained adult that never draws(and isn't into photography of course). Sounds like merely getting access to the materials and a little bit of training should suffice to get most kids to produce this kind of stuff.

[Anonymous No.4274683]

>>4274675
Art gallery owners are the artistic jew.

[Anonymous No.4274792]

>>4274481
It's money laundry dude

[Anonymous No.4274803]

>>4274792
cope

[Anonymous No.4274962]

>>4274792
probably in the case of the banana but if >>4274494
the kid's mom owns an art gallery then it just seems like his mom is pushing this to make him happy (and probably make some cash herself)
his art looks like some boring shit to me, but if he's happy then i don't really care. it's just a kid

[Anonymous No.4275054]

>>4274482
He is just a kid and can't compare with a real pro.

> Pic related

Can you see the difference now?

[Anonymous No.4275106]

>>4275054
That pic really isn't fair.I feel like Mitchell's work conveys a mood and has some pretty good composition skills

[Anonymous No.4275109]

>>4275106

[Anonymous No.4275111]

>>4275109

[Anonymous No.4275112]

>>4275111

[Anonymous No.4275159]

It's all right there: >>4274494

[Anonymous No.4275249]

He is alright. He can't produce colors with depth like more experienced artists.

[Anonymous No.4275266]

>>4275054
>such a waste of materials
why is this allowed?

[Anonymous No.4275272]

>>4275106
Would be cooler if there was actually something recognizable in there.

[Anonymous No.4275312]

>>4275054
>>4275109
>>4275111
actual garbage.

[Anonymous No.4275364]

>are we really just a bunch of pretentious fucks?

Yes ofc, every time some one post a more or less successful work by a known artist and some faggots start to:
>But THAT HAND ANATOMY IS WRONG
>ONONONO THAT <insert thing that no one will ever notice>
>THE KNEES, THE KNEES

and others start echo chambering those things, it gets really fuckin obvious. But now i think about it, there would be somehow similar reaction if you ask seething anonymous fags in any field. So why i'm surprised. This is just human nature. This is meaningless, this post in meaningless i finished it because i started it, nothing will change, fuck (you).

[Anonymous No.4275394]

>>4274481
>Is art really subjective, or are we really just a bunch of pretentious fuck?

(((They))) got hold of the art world - changed the definition of art, took spirituality and beauty from it. Turned it into yet an other mule you can use for moving money around. By degenerating art, they made it so that any "work" can be assigned a value in completely arbitarily, by those who are "in" the art world.

It is like taking the body of a baby and using it to smuggle coke across a border.

[Anonymous No.4275417]

>>4274481
The word "art" doesn't mean anything. If anything can be art than nothing is.
If it is anything than it's a status. Nothing more.
Is the shit this kid does "art"? Yeah, sure, why not.
Are those good paintings though? No.
Also any painting that requires a manifesto attached to it explaining what the fuck it portrays is not a good painting either. Your painting has to contain enough coherent information and visual cues to stand on its own.
It's lazy and self centered which makes it also hypocritical. You make a painting that you want people to see but then you don't even try to make it decipherable.

[Anonymous No.4275428]

>>4275054
I like this brushstrokes better actually. They are actually mixes of colors and don't have such random rhythm. I mean it's still pretty simple shit but to say the kid is making shit at this level just shows your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4275434]

>>4275394
>IT WUZ DA JOOS

[Anonymous No.4275435]

>>4275417
Also I've read some of those manifestos and they were all bland low IQ shit. At best they were old, simplistic, done to death ideas.
At worst it was just pretentious barely coherent schizophasia.
Artists are not philosophers no matter how much they want to believe otherwise.

[Anonymous No.4275446]

>>4274481
A piece of art is objective.
How it makes you feel is subjective.

If you don't care about subjectivity, there'd be no reason to show other people your art.
If you don't care about objectivity, there'd be no reason to make a piece of art at all.

[Anonymous No.4275453]

>>4275446
I think you mixed them up

[Anonymous No.4275539]

>>4275434
It realy was. Just look into the modern art scene and how it is managed

[Anonymous No.4275832]

Whenever I see these kinds of paintings all I can think of is that they look like something that belongs as a background in a 90s anime.

[Anonymous No.4275850]

>>4274481
>>4274482
Rich people should fuck off and die

[Anonymous No.4275864]

>>4275850
brainlet

[Anonymous No.4275867]

>>4275850
Based
>>4275864
Blue-pilled brainlet

[Anonymous No.4276113]

>>4275417
>Also any painting that requires a manifesto attached to it explaining what the fuck it portrays is not a good painting either. Your painting has to contain enough coherent information and visual cues to stand on its own.
Not wrong, but incomplete opinion.
Yes, it's not a good painting, but it could be called a good piece of art if the thought process that lead to its execution is interesting.
I'm not talking about subjective, retarded metaphoric garbage, but something more meta, like a robot that paints certain colors or shapes based on music fed into it, or some other sort of loose data visualization. Imagine you pick different books like the Bible and make one horizontal line every time God is mentioned, one vertical when the devil is mentioned, or when something positive/negative happes, then you have a painting that is a map of how that book creates its narratives.

But then again this would look better as a pretty, pure, clear Excel chart. But by giving away precision and making it a messy painting makes it so people will be more interested.

[Anonymous No.4276125]

>>4275106
Conveying a mood is the cheapest form of art, I don't know why it is somehow so important. I can convey a mood by telling a good story around a campfire, doesn't make me an artist. Invoking human feelings requires very little skill or thought.
Art is subjective and should be measured by technique. Making art subjective is making it worthless, because then an actual retard will have the same amount of say in a piece of art as a trained professional. "It's good to me because it makes me feel good" is the most bullshit and destructive sentiment to Grace the world of art.

By the way, why doesn't the same apply to literature? Why doesnt some hack artist start writing 3 word stories and start labeling them as profound? Because postmodernism shit wasn't shilled for the literary world as it was for the painting world.

[Anonymous No.4276127]

People like to have a story to talk about when they show off their newly bought piece. I’ve heard a professional artist talk about how gallery owners will ask for something that happened during the process of the piece, the artists emotional connection, something happening in the studio, to even just telling them about an event that took place delivering the work to the gallery. I believe the piece should speak for itself but the buyer wants to have some sort of connection with the artist too. When they get to buy an expensive piece made by a child that get to toot their horn about it. These works of art in particular are nothing more than conversation pieces. What this child does doesn’t affect the market I want to sell to so it doesn’t even matter what he does.

[Anonymous No.4276129]

>>4275867
You think youre red pilled but youre just another edgy woke drone on 4chan. Get a job

[Anonymous No.4276177]

>>4276113
>Not wrong, but incomplete opinion.
Well it is if you take it without context. I already made a distinction between a piece of art and a good painting in that post.

[Anonymous No.4276805]

>>4276177
No, you said "it can be considered art without being a good painting",.
I'm saying it can be considered GOOD art even if it's a bad painting, and that a manifesto can save a piece, provided it explores something worth exploring (which isn't done 99% of the time).

[Anonymous No.4276814]

money laundering
money laundering
money laundering

[Anonymous No.4276820]

>>4274481
I think it's useful to go back and look how the word "art" is used outside of paintings and music. Think of these cases

>art of war
>craftsman's art
>get it down to an art

I think art is about reaching mastery and perfection; the ability to have manifest an ideal.

Technically modern art can fall into that in that they've mastered the art getting prestige for useless, low effort garbage.

[Anonymous No.4276832]

>>4274481

A banana duct tape to a wall was sold for 120,000. Nothing can surprise me at this point.

[Anonymous No.4276833]

>>4276814
But how do you actually launder the money. You use 'dirty money' to buy a worthless painting for $150,000. You don't pay in cash because the IRS is still onto you and then your left with a worthless painting and dubious paper trail that you have to try and sell to who? Other money launderers? Do you get the cash back off the artists or wait for your money laundering investment to appreciate and again sell it to the next launderer? Its complicated mang.

[Anonymous No.4276860]

>>4276833
I'm not familiar with it so this is just a guess on my part.


I think how it works is that you buy it through the person you're trying to launder to. So if you need to transfer $1M to someone, they sell you a shitty painting. Something about charity and writing off taxes too.

[Anonymous No.4276917]

>>4276805
>No, you said "it can be considered art without being a good painting",.
>I'm saying it can be considered GOOD art even if it's a bad painting
There is no contradiction here. Sorry. it's probably not obvious from my post but I don't make a distinction between good art and bad art. As you can see in my original post I state that "art" is a status, if anything at all.
Yes, it can be considered art if it's a bad painting. Not good art though because good art, in my opinion, doesn't exist. Same with bad art.

[Anonymous No.4276959]

>>4276833
English ain't my first langage but I'll try to explain.
You own an art gallery. You get yourself an art piece worth peanuts made by a retarded university student that is getting into debt for fucking nothing. You ask your friend, who is well known in this line of work, to evaluate put a price on the piece of art and after he's valued it at 300k, you tell your other friend shekelberg that you got this art piece worth 300k (with a lot of wink wink and nod nod, it will be either bought at a price way under or just another step of money laundering I am not aware). Your buddy berg sign for a loan, of say 200 to 250k, at the bank after acquiring said piece of art and sign off the art piece as insurance to the bank if he can't pay back. After all it IS valued at 300k, more than the amount he borrowed. When comes time to pay, Shekelberg doesn't wanna and the bank seize the art piece, which they'll try to trade for money or sell off to some other museum. You made money by "selling" something at your art gallery and your buddy made 200k easily.

[Anonymous No.4277069]

>>4274481
>kid thinks he's an artist
>grow up and go to some prestigious art school in Italy
>first day in class and he can't draw
>peers mock him relentlessly, "you should just shit out paint from your ass you dumb faggot!"
>jumps off a bridge that night, learning that his entire life has been a complete and utter lie

[Anonymous No.4277109]

If people considers this art then we have failed as a race

[Anonymous No.4278415]

>>4274481
>Is art really subjective, or are we really just a bunch of pretentious fuck?
Taste in visual art is subjective, just like everything else. Food, literature, music, sex, etc etc.
The pretension is in thinking that taste in art is objective, and that objectively good art just happens to reflect your own taste. It's a god-complex cope that socially retarded autists use to avoid confronting the harsh reality that subjectivity exists and that they aren't the cold and clear-thinking intellectual titans that they like to think they are.

Picrel is a blatant speculation scheme though, very clumsy and no doubt pushed by amateurs. Anybody patting themselves on the back for realising it (several of you dipshits seem to think it's money laundering though, lel) is basically like all those idiots that think they are smart for spotting corporate shilling every time somebody shitposts an ironic shill thread.

[Anonymous No.4278520]

>>4274485
Agreed , but the bar is set so fucking low you have to TRY to not meet it

[Anonymous No.4278521]

>>4278520
>to not meet it
I meant:

The bar is set so fucking low you to actively try to make it worse

[Anonymous No.4278618]

>>4275832
the backgrounds usually portrayed something recognizable like a simple landscape or smth like that, excluding the "wham boom wahoo" effects

[Anonymous No.4278624]

>>4277109
>We have failed at a race
There is too much (((western))) influence in Korea.

[Anonymous No.4278714]

>>4274481
If I sold every single thing I drew/painted I wouldn't be able to make quarter of that money, good for him but I just can't understand this shit wtf

[Anonymous No.4279802]

>>4275428
>mixes of colors
>black and brown

[Anonymous No.4279810]

>>4276814
>sell drugs to artists who want to represent their emotions where they just swipe at a piece of paper with a paintbrush while fucked up out of their minds
>now have 100000 dollars sitting around that cant be used because you have no way to explain how you have said money
>ah but an opportunity arises! you own a gallery for the most controversial and subjective art forms of all time
>you give someone a percent of the money to simply walk in and buy the painting, and now you are both more wealthy

[Anonymous No.4279823]

The amount of cope and absolute seethe ITT is propagating off the charts exponentially. Sweet heavens would you just look at all the buttravaging this kid ensued from his paintings, he know how to harmonize colors and has a sense of aesthetics - something that which you faggots will never comprehend never ever ever ever.

[Anonymous No.4279880]

>>4279823
w-WERE BETTER YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME

[Anonymous No.4279890]

>>4276833
You pay in cash at an auction or gallery, build a portfolio of works of solid but not extreme value so as to not garner too much attention, exploiting the auction industry's culture of non-disclosure. You get a loan from the auction house themselves using the art as collateral. Of course, the vulnerability is with the way auction houses work, and all art is vulnerable to being misused is such a way.

You probably already know how it works though, and are waiting in vain for trilby and cargo short wearing autists like these
>>4279810
>>4276959
to substantiate the (let's be frank) blatant lies and retarded bullshit schemes that instantly show they have no idea what the fuck they are on about, lies they come up with in order to give themselves a fairytale to cling to in order to explain why art they dislike is popular.

[Anonymous No.4279895]

>>4279890
>why art they dislike is popular.
>popular
>gets on the news explicitly because its so flabbergasting to even think it would get sold
>meanwhile anime and disney and videogames and every other skilled artistic medium continues to dominate the art industry

[Anonymous No.4279899]

>>4279895
>It's flabbergasting that Da Vinci's Salvator Mundi is the highest selling painting so far
>it should be my Disney princess hentai commissions!
kill yourself

[Anonymous No.4279903]

>>4279899
supposedly people were literally gasping so loud it dominated the fucking room, its an exception and does not contradict anything ive said. people are downright confused it got sold for so much, it became noteworthy BECAUSE it was sold for so much. and besides, that would be lion king

[Anonymous No.4279904]

>>4279903
What would be Lion King?

[Anonymous No.4279908]

>>4279904
firstly im going to dial back, this painting you mentioned is not even abstract scribbles like the op image and doesn't represent your side of the argument at all, which i thought was to say that random blots on a paper were popular. secondly, to address your current post, lion king is the highest grossing piece of art today, specifically i am talking about the 1994 version. note, that im arguing for art, and completely ignored your attempt at changing the subject to the unreplicated success of a painting

[Anonymous No.4279918]

>>4274482
Stupid fucking tax dodging rich fags

[Anonymous No.4279962]

>>4279908
I mentioned Salvator Mundi precisely because it isn't like the work in the OP, and made the news. As a Da Vinci and naturalistic renaissance work fedoralords that seethe over the abstract would feel it or a work like it deserves to be the record holder, regardless of the final price. What I hoped to concisely convey in shitpost format is that it would be dishonest to say without evidence that the rediscovery of the Cimabue from that old lady's kitchen for another example was newsworthy for the work's merit but Jeff Koons reclaiming his title of the highest priced living artist got press because of the absurdity of it. I don't like Jeff Koons one bit, but he has very high grossing blockbusters. He's undeniably popular. The narrative of the free thinking 4chan poster on the same side as the wise common man vs. pretentious academics and emperor's new clothes poseurs is another autist's fairytale that's commonly repeated alongside the "le money laundry" mantra.

I don't know what the fuck you are doing or if you think you are rhetorical sleight of hand genius bringing up cartoons then trying to say I'm changing the subject but it's patronisingly blatant dishonest bullshit I'm not going to go along with. You're comparing The cheapest (printmaker's) print I own cost me four times as much as a trip to the cinema, and I'm not buying the fucking film canister when I do. You're not comparing like with like.

[Anonymous No.4281526]

>>4275539
>>4276820
>modern

[Anonymous No.4284182]

bump

[Anonymous No.4284194]

>>4274481
Sounds more like money laundering

[Anonymous No.4284222]

>>4274482
>‘after producing one of his masterworks
I hate this. Mastery is supposed to mean something. It’s supposed to be something developed after decades of hard work

[Anonymous No.4284241]

>>4274481
>>4274482

Art is subjective. But not everything is art.
I personally believe art has to clear 2 hurdles to be classified as art:
1) It needs to display some form of skill over the average human
2) It needs to envoke an emotion or memory into the viewer

>display some skill
the
The colours show he atleast has a grasp of colour theory

>envoke an emotion
This is where the subjectivity comes in. I could say something like "it reminds me of relaxing on my family ranch watching the wind blow the grass in the distance" or some other gay shit, but that would be a personal experience I've had. Someone may not have har that experience.

So yeah. I would say this is technically art. But I wouldnt call it masterful? No.
The only reason anything gives a shit is because it's a child and his art gallery mother desperately wants to be known as cultured.

[Anonymous No.4285716]

>>4284194
speculation scheme, ignoramus

[Anonymous No.4285727]

>>4274481
It's cute! His mom's clearly doing what makes him happy with the art gallery stuff or w/e. He'll probably grow up to be a pretty good artist just because of the environment he's growing up in. So good for him! He's happy.

[Anonymous No.4286201]

>>4274481
Yes, it's all subjective; problems arise when curators, collectors and consultants use this subjectivity in order to wave off concerns regarding the art world: namely their place in it, and what effects they have on emerging and established artists alike. Asia is hot right now; the Chinese art market in particular wasn't very profitable until the 2010s, and so buyers have clearly begun looking elsewhere in countries like Vietnam in anticipation of newer markets.

[Anonymous No.4286207]

>>4274481
Yes, it's all subjective; problems arise when curators, collectors and consultants use this subjectivity in order to wave off concerns regarding the art world: namely their place in it, and what effects they have on emerging and established artists alike. Asia is hot right now; the Chinese art market in particular wasn't very profitable until the 2010s, and so buyers have clearly begun looking elsewhere in countries like Vietnam in anticipation of new markets.

[Anonymous No.4286210]

>>4274481

Money Laundering