/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4363999]

Your hate of "modern art" is just a lack of maturity.

[Anonymous No.4364002]

>>4363999
Your statement is just jewish subversion.

[Anonymous No.4364003]

There is modern art and contemporary art.

People here get the two mixed up a lot because they don't know much outside of Anime and the basic fundamentals.

[Anonymous No.4364011]

>>4364003
I learned the differences between the two back when I took Art History in HS.
Don't be such a pretentious twat

[Anonymous No.4364014]

The intellectual niveau of your statement confirms my statement.

[Anonymous No.4364015]

>>4364003
>there's turd and there's poop and ppl here get the two mixed up
alright zoomer buy your a banana bathed in blood period "artwork"

[Anonymous No.4364018]

>>4364002
The intellectual niveau of your statement confirms my statement: you are retarded.

[Anonymous No.4364035]

>>4364015
This post just shows how confused you are.

[Anonymous No.4364040]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq_4KtPmyYY

[Anonymous No.4364042]

Anyone who engages with people like OP in good faith has already lost, just look at his replies. Just dismiss these people out of hand and move on. Neither of you stand a chance of convincing the other to begin with.

[Anonymous No.4364046]

>>4364042
Ok we are trying to take the board back from misinformed anime shitters.

[Anonymous No.4364060]

>>4364046
this board was always about representational and commercial art

[Anonymous No.4364062]

>>4364040
what a mature video and comments section.

[Anonymous No.4364063]

>>4364046
You are never going to find enough people that enjoy pretending to be 2deep4you on 4chan to fill an entire board.

[Anonymous No.4364086]

>>4364002
based
>>4364040
redpilled

[Anonymous No.4364088]

>>4364018
Commercial art can be anything dumb ass

[Anonymous No.4364114]

Fuck you all, I'm not giving you a single (you).

[Anonymous No.4364133]

>>4364042
Would (You) be so kind to define, what art is? I'm really interested in how you think.

[Anonymous No.4364137]

>>4364088
When commercial art is everything, how is "real art" defined?
Does the circumstance that art is traded weakens its artiness?

[Anonymous No.4364138]

>>4364137
What the fuck does this even mean?

[Anonymous No.4364140]

>>4363999
I like the things this guy makes, but he ruins it by calling it something retarded and on the nose. Instead of "untitled" or "shark" or "shark tank" he called it
"The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living"
Don't explain it to me with the name asshole.

[Anonymous No.4364145]

>>4364040
Art reached such a high level with academicism that it just got boring. Couple that with the spread of photography and where can we go from there?

[Anonymous No.4364148]

>>4364145
To break it and use imagination.

[Anonymous No.4364149]

>>4364138
You are young and confused. That is OK.
If you are so full of emotions against certain artworks, you wouldn't classify as art, what would be your definition of art?
Is it: i don't like it, so it isn't art?

[Anonymous No.4364150]

>>4364145
It's so stupid that Amawus on here think contemporary art is crap because people stylised the work to create an image that is different from a photo.

Contemporary artists and Anime artists have something on common in that they take the fundamentals and then break them.

Do you think professional manga illustrators that do it for a Job hate contemporary art too?

Because I think it's probably just the losers on here.

[Anonymous No.4364151]

>>4364149
Art work would be define to me as when human, emotion, creativity and expression of ones self reach a certain level than it becomes art.

Although illustration and graphic design aren't always considered art by everyone.. which I disagree with.

[Anonymous No.4364165]

>>4364133
>I'm really interested in how you think.
I'm not interested in sharing that with your kind anymore after all the interactions I've had. You people are the definition of arrogance and wouldn't know what art is if it hit you in the face. Fuck you and fuck OP.

[Anonymous No.4364167]

>>4364165
Amawu detected.

[Anonymous No.4364169]

guys, it is pointless to force art history onto the anime kids.

[Anonymous No.4364170]

>>4364151
Thank you. And how is the "certain level" defined? Is it a subjective instance?

A lot of aversion against non-figurative art is rooted in the assumption, that the artworks lack craftmanship.

[Anonymous No.4364173]

>>4364169
I'm not that big on modern art myself but I think as an artist it's till important for me to try and understand it.

[Anonymous No.4364175]

>>4364165
Thank you for confirming my initial statement and good luck with perfecting the shape of your mangatits.

[Anonymous No.4364176]

>>4364170
It is very subjective.

My artwork tries to mix figurative and non figurative together.

I do the non figurative to make it creative and interesting and then I paint other parts with influence from artists such as Gustav Klimt.

[Anonymous No.4364187]

>>4364176
To recur to the "certain level": is everything below that level "bad (or meaningless) art" or "not art"?

[Anonymous No.4364189]

>>4364187
Yes.

[Anonymous No.4364191]

>>4364187
I'm.not an Amawu btw.
I think You are confused as to who you are talking too.

[Anonymous No.4364218]

>>4363999
You cannot make me like it, sorry.

[Anonymous No.4364222]

>>4364218
You don't have to like it but you should at least know about it.

[Anonymous No.4364223]

>>4363999
Reminder that all posts containing
>Amawus
is made by the same person. Let it sink it.

[Anonymous No.4364230]

>>4364223
There's two people now.

[Anonymous No.4364234]

>>4364002
this

[Anonymous No.4364235]

>>4363999
Bait thread. Hidden and saged.

[Anonymous No.4364236]

>>4364230
I knew somebody would think he's this smart.
Enjoy your (you) and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4364237]

>>4364223
this, we need to filter the fucking word i cringe everyttime i see it

[Anonymous No.4364246]

>>4364237
Because it describes you.

[Anonymous No.4364251]

>>4364237
An Amawu who likes the word Amawu is like a Jewish person that likes racial slurs.

[Anonymous No.4364260]

>>4364189
Is it bad art or not art? The question implies two possibilities. Please feel free, to name another.
("Not art" can't be "bad art" because it lacks the class "art".)

[Anonymous No.4364282]

Modern art is okay for decoration.

I'm a reactionary sperg, and have always preferred classical art. But it is obvious that abstract modern art is suitable for decoration in simple middle and lower class housing where a classical piece of art would be out of place.

But when I say that, it sounds like I'm being insulting. Did the great modern artists want to have their work hung up on plebs' walls for no reason other than decoration?

[Anonymous No.4364284]

>>4364260
I can't name a bad art that isn't art because it's not art so if its not art how can I name a bad art that isn't art when it's not art.

[Anonymous No.4364288]

>>4363999
Modern art is just lack of dedication

[Anonymous No.4364292]

people who debate what art is are not artists.

You may quote me.

[Anonymous No.4364296]

>>4364288
This is not true at all and shows you are an Amawu.

[Anonymous No.4364301]

>>4364282
Are you for real?

[Anonymous No.4364346]

>>4364046
Amawus :^)

[Anonymous No.4364353]

>>4364346
What does this post even mean?

[Anonymous No.4364359]

>>4363999
its a lack of being a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4364494]

>>4364292
Everyone is an artist, even those, who debate what art is.

[Anonymous No.4364500]

>>4364002
Came here to post this

Jews actively destroy art and culture

[Anonymous No.4364507]

>>4364288
Some modern art is quite laborintensive and based on knowledge of technology.
To prepare a dead shark is at least a craft not everyone can do without dedication.

[Anonymous No.4364516]

>>4364500
Western culture is at least interwoven with a jewish narrative.

[Anonymous No.4364657]

>>4363999
Its just con artistry

[Anonymous No.4364671]

Art can be literally anything. That doesn't make it good or interesting though.
That's all that needs to be said on the subject.

[Anonymous No.4364690]

>>4364002
>>4364500
>>4364516
Paranoid & obsessed. >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.4364718]

>>4364494
not to me

[Anonymous No.4364788]

>>4364507

Shame Damien didn't know either, since his first shark started rotting lol

[Anonymous No.4364789]

>>4364690
Maybe, but they are still right.

[Anonymous No.4364796]

>>4364788

[Anonymous No.4364899]

>>4364353
Amateur Manga Artists without understanding.

The kind of people that give shit critique on modern art even though they only know just a little bit about Anime.

[Anonymous No.4364919]

>>4364046
this board has always been misinformed anime shitters you newfaggot trash

[Anonymous No.4364926]

>>4364919
>has always
the real newfag here is you

[Anonymous No.4364940]

>>4364919
Doesn't matter we are taking it back from these normies anyway.

[Anonymous No.4364974]

>>4364002
This

[Ok boomer No.4365129]

>>4363999
Your love of contemporary art is just a lack of le bon gout. Modern art was great but Gertrude Stein is so passe and postmodernism must go. Metamodernism is where it's at now, go on with the time.

[Anonymous No.4365355]

>>>4365129
based metamodernism poster

[Anonymous No.4365457]

>>4363999
agreed, too many people hate on modern art when they mean contemporary fine art

[Anonymous No.4365680]

>>4365457
Explain further.

[Anonymous No.4365727]

>>4365680
A lot of people think modern art means the art of today, but modern art era is from around the mid 1800's to mid 1900's. The art of today is called contemporary art, and includes movements like Conceptualism, Minimalism, Abstract Expressionism, Installation Art, and Performance art (the art movements most people hate).
And after writing this out I remembered that there was also a lot of art from the late modern art period that people dislike, which makes my previous statement incorrect. I was thinking about artists like Monet, Rivera, and Picasso and completely forgot about the artists who were already starting to push art to a weird direction, like the Dadaists and Duchamp.

[Anonymous No.4365887]

Serious questions:

By what standards and criteria do you judge contemporary art by? How do you separate the wheat from the chaff? What makes a piece of contemporary fine art "good" and worth people's time?

I've never gotten a definitive answer to this.

[Anonymous No.4365890]

Old masters = Russian novels

contemporary art = reality tv

[Anonymous No.4365893]

>>4364040
based

[Anonymous No.4365899]

Money laundering is an art in and of itself.
So yes, objectively speaking modern art is *art*.

[Anonymous No.4365985]

>>4363999
>There is modern art and contemporary art.
There is no meaningful difference between the two except for their time period.

[Anonymous No.4366007]

>>4365727
Contemporary art isn't a proper period, because every art was contemporary, when the artists where alive.

[Anonymous No.4366010]

>>4363999
No, my hatred of contemporary art stems from the rise of global yet simultaneously obscurantist art markets.
>>4364003
Absolutely; so much of /ic/'s complaints with regards to art could be alleviated if they just read an art history book.
>>4365727
Well people point to WW2 as the catalyst for contemporary art because that was when many would-be art dealers made their way to the United States. Plus, once it was over, with Europe in ashes, modern art was deemed too passé. America was the new hotness and many artists sought to distinguish themselves from their European counterparts. And they did for the next twenty years; selling art at bargain bin prices to (mostly) wealthy descendants of textile industrialists, taxi moguls, etc.

By the 1970s, collectors saw a dramatic shift in the overall value of the works found in their collections thanks to successful marketing campaigns in relation to all of the galleries in SoHo, and began considering selling them at auction. Contemporary art's actual watershed moment happened during the 1973 Scull Sale at Sotheby Parke Bernet, where a mixture of abstract expressionist paintings and pop art from Robert C. Skull's collection sold for many times more than what he paid for in the decades prior.

This set a precedent for the art world, which over the next forty years would gradually dissolve and reform itself into something much more akin to that of an industry. Gone were the days of Leo Castelli's generous monthly stipends; all that's left was Larry Gagosian's brutal, unapologetic sales targets. No artist is safe, even in death. The profit making is so tempting even museums have got in on the action with deaccessioning. Now that it's 2020, people have begun to wonder when this "boom" will actually go bust; hopefully soon.

[Anonymous No.4366013]

>>4365887
Subjective meisurement of the creation height.

[Anonymous No.4366022]

Why do so many artists end up screaming about semantics?
Congratulations, the terms that you're using are ones that the vast majority of people don't adhere to. Looking at language and the evolution of language, words will come to mean whatever the majority of speakers use them to describe.
So you can argue about the difference between modern and contemporary art all you want and claim that your opponents are uneducated and uncultured, unfortunately for you no one gives a shit about how you classify shit.

[Anonymous No.4366026]

>>4365985
I'm OP. You are right. I don't use the term "contemporary art".

[Anonymous No.4366027]

>>4363999
I just can see well enough to tell it’s shit

[Anonymous No.4366029]

>>4366027
OP here: What is the best (or at least a good) work of art in your eyes?

[Anonymous No.4366048]

>>4366022
Distinguishing almost two centuries of art into relatively distinct periods is not "semantics"
>>4366026
Don't try to talk about art history if you're unwilling to use the terms used to describe it.

[Anonymous No.4366062]

>>4365985
There absolutely is. but no one likes talking about their relationship to art markets.
>>4366022
Distinguishing almost two centuries of art into distinct periods is not just "semantics"
>>4366026
Don't try to talk about art history if you're unwilling to use the terms used to describe it.

[Anonymous No.4366076]

>>4366062
Please define the border between "modern art" and "contemporary art". In 1502 Leonardo da Vinci was contemporary art. In 1995 the DVD was new media.

Are you familiar with the term "erweiterter Kunstbegriff"?

[Anonymous No.4366107]

>>4364046
>noooo you can't post anime on the anime website named after anime

[Anonymous No.4366347]

>>4366007
Saying all art was contemporaneous for its time is a bit like saying water is wet. When is art no longer considered contemporaneous, though? Andy Warhol, Francis Bacon and Jean-Michel Basquit: three artists who've been dead for decades, are deeply associated with contemporary art on account of the fact that their works keep getting resold at auction for millions of dollars. Should the money stop?
>>4366076
The biggest controversies surrounding modern art was its connection to imperialism, whether it was directly in the form of ethnographic exhibitions or indirectly in the form of modernist primitivism. Contemporary art's biggest claim to fame was its attempt at a radical departure from all of that through the inclusion of previously marginalized artists from around the world—namely the global south.

Suddenly artists from Asia, Africa and South America were allowed to have a stake in what looked to be increasingly global art market. This was unheard of a century ago, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been without its own problems. Emerging artists are expected more than ever to work under austere conditions amidst crumbling support networks, if not in the sheer absence of them to begin with.

Your average person looks at that, then looks at the headlines coming out of Sothby's, Christie's. etc where anonymous buyers are making bank on artwork that have more than eclipsed their respective artists' net worth upon creation, and you think their objection to that stems from a lack of maturity? Fuck off. I don't remember liking what little Joseph Beuys I read a couple years ago so I'm not familiar.

[Anonymous No.4366400]

>>4366347
Thank you for your detailed answer. If the dead artists you name count as contemporary art, what about Marcel Duchamp and - you named him - Joseph Beuys? I can't see a break in the modernist tradition between Duchamps Fountain and Hirsts sharktank. Its like inventing new terms for early and late renaissance artworks.

[Anonymous No.4366437]

>>4363999
Modern art started WW2

[Anonymous No.4366597]

>>4366437
1914

[Anonymous No.4366745]

>>4366437

[Anonymous No.4366809]

>Modernism
>Before 1940s
Rooted in a belief that humanity was moving forward, that science and technology meant progress, that the intellect was superior to nature and religion, and that Western culture was leading the way. The individual was important, and could make a difference. The artist, through his art, could help bring about social progress. Lots of experimentation with what painting can do, that photography can't.
Impressionism
Fauvism
Cubism

>Modernism
>After WWII
Abstract Expressionism. Art isn't supposed to represent anything, or mean anything, beyond itself. The less a work of art is "tainted" by outside references, the more "pure" it is. Art isn't for narrative or evoking thoughts or feelings. Art is strictly for evoking an "aesthetic experience." Pollack, Rothko, etc..
1960s: Art doesn't even have to be aesthetically pleasing. Moreover, anything and everything can be art. Minimalism, formlessness, art that's all about the process, whatever. Whatever defined art before, get rid of it.

1/3

[Anonymous No.4366811]

>>4366809
>Contemporary: Postmodernism
>1960s-1980s
Fuck all that noise. Progress is a lie. No culture's better than any other. And art MUST mean something. You can ONLY understand art in terms of a larger social context. In fact, don't even look at the art itself—look at its frame. The viewer's own context changes the meaning that's conveyed. The artist is more interested in creating an experience than a thing.
Installation Art tries to take this to the next level. The space the viewer is in is part of the experience.
"Reconstructive Art" (like Fluxus) says society and art are broken, and must be rebuilt. Art must be meaningful and transformative. It's a personal expression of the artist. You start getting bizarre performance art.
"Deconstructive Art" (like Pop Art) doesn't try to transform, but to hold up a mirror to society. By making unspoken rules explicit, it skewers art and society. Andy Warhol gets famous with works that are a slap in the face to Abstract Expressionists, and goes on to show how manufactured reality has replaced the real thing.

>Contemporary: Postmodernism
>1980s-1990s
Goes extreme by questioning originality itself. You get ideas like "the death of the artist," where it doesn't even matter what the artist was trying to say. And don't bother creating your own stuff. Flat-out appropriating someone else's creation and "re-presenting" it in your own context is legitimate. In a world where everything is already experienced second-hand on a screen, already filtered by someone else, how is authorship or originality even possible?
Goes extreme with people like Baudrillard saying there's no difference between art and not-art, and Beuys saying everyone's an artist. All the boundaries and distinctions are thrown out window. There's no relationship between an experience and a representation of that experience.

2/3

[Anonymous No.4366815]

>>4366811
>Contemporary: Fuck Movements
>1990s-2000s
In the 1990s, Gen-X artists shrugged off the critical theory movements, and got back to making the art they wanted. Stuff like "death of the artist" and deconstructivism start getting called out as bullshit, more limiting than liberating.
Artists start getting dirty trying to express meanings about race, class, gender, and sexuality. Political correctness and identity politics start to become major themes. You start seeing graffiti stuff like Basquiat and Haring, and installations are still a big thing.
Representative art gets a resurgence in the mid-90s. Painting and photography use beauty, especially unsettling beauty, to be evocative and get audiences thinking. In the 2000s, artists start rejecting performance art, installations, and "conceptual" art as being, y'know, not art. You want to say something, say it in a language the audience understands. Use your own personal experience, the viewer's context, and whatever symbolism or technique you think will get the job done.

>Contemporary: Now
>2000s-2010s
Art as provocation has returned to a kind of avant-garde optimism that change is possible, and art can prompt society into rethinking culture. In a way, we've come full circle.

3/3

[Anonymous No.4367295]

>>4364040
holy shit thankyou
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9FnMMqnYSg&feature=emb_rel_end

[Anonymous No.4367356]

Will we be reading about how the internet influenced artists in 50 years?
Imagine the anime furry trash and fan art flooding the pages future art history books.
Also tumblr art ahahaha.

[Anonymous No.4367520]

>>4364301
since this is a shitpost thread im gonna reveal my deepest shame to you.
i thought, since i was 5 or 6 when i was made to attempt to recreate starry night in an art class, that the green vegetation in the foreground of the painting was some sort of spire or sharp jagged mountain. like when you use the raise ground tool in zoo tycoon.
i have never told anyone this, you guys are the first.
pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.4367550]

>>4366013
what?

[Anonymous No.4367569]

From what I remember from art history class:
Modern art: World War I to 1960s
Contemporary art: 1960s to today.

Is Andy Warhol modern or contemporary?

[Anonymous No.4367632]

>>4367569
See >>4366811

[Anonymous No.4367662]

>>4367569
Warhol is Contemporary. Modernism actually had some principles to it.

[Anonymous No.4367720]

>>4367356
Sakimichan will be the Picasso of our time. She'll be remembered as one of the digital art masters of the early 2000's.

[Anonymous No.4367752]

>>4364035
No one is confused you just have an unwarrented air of self importance.

[Anonymous No.4367901]

>>4367720
>>>4367356
>Sakimichan will be the Picasso of our time. She'll be remembered as one of the digital art masters of the early 2000's.

Name one aspect, that equals Sakimichan with Picasso except being artists.

[Anonymous No.4367909]

>>4367901
they both have bend reality in the pursuit of better emotion

[Anonymous No.4367920]

>>4367909

[Anonymous No.4368101]

>>4364002
Based

[Anonymous No.4368103]

>>4367752
Nah youre confused.

[Anonymous No.4368106]

>>4366815
This is not what happened you dumb ass.

Go out into the real world and get off 4chan.

[Anonymous No.4368124]

>>4367901
both make photocopiers seethe

[Anonymous No.4368174]

>>4366815
Profound answer. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.4368741]

I appreciate modern art for the fact that it attempts to make art that is independent of commercial/mass appeal. It's fun to go to museums and ponder work that isn't usually something I would seek out.
However I stick to illustration and animation because that is what I enjoy. The subject matter might not always be profound but I'm into it because I enjoy the craft behind it. Most modern art people I know respect that, with the exception of one massive faggot who tried to bully me out of a printmaking course because he thinks illustrators aren't worthy of touching a printing press. Ironically this was a person who would bring in Harry Potter inspired art and get asshurt when the professors called it kitsch.

[Anonymous No.4368868]

>>4367520
If it makes you feel any better, I thought the same thing before I read your post and I'm an adult.

[Anonymous No.4369071]

>>4366400
Just because there are hints of old art in the new doesn't make their periods any less distinct. No one thinks the romanticists were modern because that's a ridiculous assertion to make. While there were hints of modern art among working artists at the time, insisting that they were modern on that basis alone is intellectually dishonest. The same goes for calling contemporary, modern; it's just dumb.

Joseph Beuys was involved in Fluxus, which was at one point described as the Dada of its time. The man's performance/installation art were by nature of the medium, massively unprofitable and quintessentially contemporary in the sense that he sought a sort of spiritual renewal of the art world. IIRC his whole shtick was deeply polemical and is best exemplified by "The Silence of Marcel Duchamp Is Overrated"

What influences an artist doesn't matter nearly as much as how it informs their work. Marcel Duchamp ridiculed art's commercialization so much to the point he quit when it started happening. Damien Hirst on the other hand welcomed it with open arms; bypassed the gallery system by selling artwork through auction houses, and became the richest artist in the world. I don't see how they're even remotely comparable.

[Anonymous No.4369161]

>>4369071
The modern topos of shock in art* and the aestethicization of the disgusting and profane.

*without referencing the bible or making an explicit political statement like goya did or de sade in literature.

[Anonymous No.4369170]

>>4369071
And Duchamp was a descendant of rich parents so he could give a fuck on the commercial aspects of art.

[Anonymous No.4369198]

>>4369071
I'm not an art historian and dont care much about classifications. But the sixties aren't too far away, to define them as a bifurcationpoint. Fundamentally everything since Malewitsch is modernism. If i should classify the nowness, i would call it late modernism, a period of blooming decadence and repetition of the once new.

[Anonymous No.4369206]

>>4368106
Then what happened?

[Anonymous No.4369943]

Contemporary art is just a commodity-class.

[Anonymous No.4370050]

>>4367520
I thought it's a cathedral's tower. Who would've thought it's a damn tree when it's taking up half the picture

>>4365129
Check it out, the metamodernist manifesto is actually pretty decent philosophically and ethically, but their art is just as if not more trash than post-modernist.

[Anonymous No.4370517]

>>4363999
Your love of "modern art" is just a lack of standards and taste

[Anonymous No.4370645]

>>4369161
Notions of the grotesque go as far back to the late renaissance. What "disgusting" and "profane" style characteristics art has had up until this point have largely been trivialized. Some art historians have actually highlighted this paradoxical relationship in recent years, but the narrative gets slippery the moment they try applying it to contemporary art where the grotesque actually adds value. Which brings us back to art markets: no one wants to talk about them, much less how to navigate them.
>>4369170
You don't have to be born into wealth to care about the commercialization of art. People have more reason to care now than they ever have before; there's a reason why the starving artist meme has endured for so long. I'll defer to what I said earlier: >>4366010; remember the watershed moment.
>>4369198
I think "late modernism" has a very similar connotation to late capitalism. There's always this implied anticipation of what comes after, and very little consideration for what's actually been happening. It's not useful from an art historical standpoint, nor is it conducive to solving its problems.
>>4370050
Metamodernism was never intended to be seen as a philosophical framework or (god forbid) an art movement. Charlatans like Luke Turner had the decency to admit as such five years ago; please let it die along with his artistic career.

[Anonymous No.4370664]

>>4364040
>don't like a statement
>also have no argument against said statement
>stuff a bunch of YTP-tier editing into it
>"LOOK IT'S SILLY NOW, HAHA HOW CAN ANYONE TAKE THIS STATEMENT SERIOUSLY WHEN I HAVE MAKE IT LOOK SILLY."

beyond pathetic.

[Anonymous No.4370670]

>>4364002
/thread

[Anonymous No.4370679]

>>4370517
>>>4363999 (OP) (You)
>Your love of "modern art" is just a lack of standards and taste

I don't "love" modern art. What do you mean by standards and taste? Michelangelos David? Or one of your Mangatittygirls?

[Anonymous No.4370684]

>>4370517
>>>4363999 (OP) (You)
>Your love of "modern art" is just a lack of standards and taste
I think you mean the supposed lack of proper craftmanship in modern art, like the other plebeians.

[Anonymous No.4370819]

>>4367901
they're both hacks

[Anonymous No.4370840]

>>4363999
i used to make fun of modern art but lately i've learned a lot from it in term of how to express ideas and raw emotions and add them to my illustrations

[Anonymous No.4371337]

>>4370517
Okay Amawu.

[Anonymous No.4371565]

>>4370840
Congratulations. You are evolving from am Amawu to a real artist.

[Anonymous No.4371626]

>>4366815
Basquiat was 80s

[Anonymous No.4374156]

Is David Hockney a contemporary artist? If yes, why?

[Anonymous No.4375069]

>>4364002
>jewish subversion
What does this mean?
Anyway, would there even be "modern" "postmodern" etc. art without Jewish influence? What would the art world look like without it?

[Anonymous No.4375104]

>>4364222
Well yes. People need to know what NOT to do.

[Anonymous No.4375287]

>>4375104
I don't think any artist would disagree with this.

[Anonymous No.4375297]

>>4363999
Any contemporary art is at least better than anime.

[Anonymous No.4375314]

>>4375297
I disagree with this.

It's not anime artists I dislike... i'ts amawus

[Anonymous No.4375318]

Like if people could about anime art without being amawu.s and giving misinformed critiques every where it would be okay but that's not the case.

[Anonymous No.4375333]

Hello fellow channers, I sure do love jews and modern art, weird how many anti-semitic weebs have shown up in recent times!

[Anonymous No.4375346]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y_8DWg5W0w

[Anonymous No.4375380]

>>4375069
Not the one who said "jewish subversion".
But that's the most interesting question: how would europe look today without jews and christians? No -isms and an arthistory without biblical depictions.

[Anonymous No.4377552]

>>4367720
utter shit

[Anonymous No.4377565]

>>4364002
Based. Remember that a number of early modern artists were literally sponsored by the CIA to combat Soviet realism.

[Anonymous No.4377607]

>>4377565
Reminder, that non-representional art is the visual arm of cultural marxism.

[Anonymous No.4377861]

>>4377607
Okay Amawu.

[Anonymous No.4377863]

>>4375333
Okay amawu