/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4855888]

At what point is art no longer considered art? Pic related is 'untitled' by William Anastasi, and is on display at the Museum of Modern Art in NY. Today, he's known as "one of the most underrated conceptual artists of his generation"

[Anonymous No.4855908]

He pretended to jerk off on the subway while making those drawings. Instead he was actually scribbling on a piece of paper in his pocket.

[Anonymous No.4855909]

sure, this photo of the piece looks not that great, but i don't think art in traditional mediums - and especially more abstract works like this - can be fairly criticised without seeing them in person. all the op image is, is a 2d, third generation reproduction of the art, and not the actual artwork itself.

[Anonymous No.4855925]

>>4855888
Actually I like these, sorta like looking at clouds and seeing various shapes and they look like they all could represent the same thing in different motions. Like I can see a skateboarder doing flips or something

[Anonymous No.4855934]

>>4855908
are you sure?

[Anonymous No.4856318]

conceptual art is just about having the balls to call some random stuff art and insisting on it being something more than it appears at first glance. the whole difference between a /beg/ poster and William Anastasi is the difference in their levels of impertinence.

[Anonymous No.4856327]

daily reminder this is all burgerstan’s fault

[Anonymous No.4856337]

>>4855909
>>4855925
trying too hard

[Anonymous No.4856342]

>>4855909
Yes anon I'm sure that looking at those tiny scribble in real life opens up a whole new perspective
you're such a fucker, this argument might be solid for something like a Rothko where the digi version doesn't do justice but this? oh no no no

[Anonymous No.4856361]

>>4855934
You know it's good visual art when you have to explain it with words.

[Anonymous No.4856390]

>>4856361
truly the greatest pieces are obvious!!

[Anonymous No.4856433]

>>4856342
This bollocks about Rothkos being better in the flesh, is crap, been in a room of them and they were still just over rated big blobs.
ALL physical visual media looks better in the flesh than on a computer, one example is Monet's Rouen series, there was a room of these two years ago in London, up close they were 'meh'. But from across the room in a series, when I turned around and saw them, they were incredible. But on a computer screen there is no assembled viewing across a room, as the artist would have intended once.

[Anonymous No.4856442]

>>4856390
The greatest pieces have VISUAL information that you can decipher and come to your own conclusion.

[Anonymous No.4856462]

>>4856433
i think a video might better prove your point than yet another picture.

[Anonymous No.4856481]

>>4856342
If it was anime being hung up in museums you’d be there every day I bet.

[Anonymous No.4856524]

>>4856462
That was my point. You weren't allowed to take photos or videos when the exhibition was on, as many paintings were from private collections.
Here, this shows a couple of the cathedral paintings, also I'm shocked at how large the 'kimono' painting of Camile is.
https://youtu.be/isgrtC2Zx-s

[Anonymous No.4856543]

>>4856342
the same rothko that paints memeflags?

[Anonymous No.4856582]

>>4856442
Given context, the scribbles convey visual information that they wouldn't without it. It's not groundbreaking, but you can clearly tell what they mean which puts it above some asspull "figure out what it means to you :^)" conceptual art.

[Anonymous No.4856585]

>>4855888
>>4856342
Ask yourself this; in 500 years time will anyone give a shit about these works? The answer is obviously no. They won't even be in basement storage, they will be in landfill.

[Anonymous No.4856589]

>>4855888
If a bunch of sucker's want plaster bullshit on their walls and call it kino they're free to do so long as they're not doing it with my money.

[Anonymous No.4856598]

>>4856585
I don't have to because I'm not personally investing in it so why should I care. Odds are it still holds more interest to me in the present than whatever boring representational art you think galleries should be filled up with.

[Anonymous No.4856601]

>>4855888
Anything with the intent to be art is art, regardless of how skilled the artist is or how well it received by the audience. I say this because if you say something is art, then it will be judged on the basis of its artistic value. Art seems to have moved away from execution and adeptness, and now focuses more on expression and abstraction.

[Anonymous No.4856630]

>>4855888
Shut up faggot.

[Anonymous No.4856647]

>>4856433
As technology improves, this will become less and less of an issue. You may not realize it while looking at it, but the resolution of a computer monitor does not even come close to what the naked eye can see with 20/20 vision. What this means is that when looking at a painting in a museum, from afar, you can see far more detail than you could with an image shrunken down to the same size in your field of vision on a monitor.
The RGB gamut also doesn't contain ALL visible colors, so there is some descrepency there, but the gamut for pigment is even smaller (and smaller still if the artist isn't using a cyan or magenta in their palette).

The one thing a standard sized computer monitor cannot replicate is the sense of scale that a large painting provides, but larger monitors, projection, and VR could all accomplish this.

[Anonymous No.4856648]

>>4856647
Oh god no, not the cyan/magenta poster again....

[Anonymous No.4856651]

>>4856648
What is your problem?

[Anonymous No.4856653]

>>4856647
also, people often overlook the fact a painting is 3d, whereas an image on a monitor is only 2d.

[Anonymous No.4856659]

>>4856653
You mean in terms of the texture of the paint and canvas itself? Yeah, there is that. VR will eventually be able to replicate this too, and personally I've never found it to be that important in the first place. I would say 99% of painters don't even consider the sculptural element of painting and just use it as a means to make a 2D image.

[Anonymous No.4857422]

>>4855925
>>4855909
>>4856601
That's a surprisingly open-minded response for an /ic/ person. Congratulations, you pass

[Anonymous No.4857427]

>>4855888
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Gh9jKARzo

[Anonymous No.4857428]

Although I'm not a huge fan of the OP image, I actually quite like some of his works. I got angry with him and tried to replicate some of his art and it turns out it's much more difficult than it looks

[Anonymous No.4857438]

I generally don’t care for this kind of stuff, but I do think it’s valid to consider the conceptual sphere and process of creation as a part of an artistic piece. It’s just not for me, and that’s fine.

[Anonymous No.4857553]

How much of this trend's prevalence hinges on overly proud rich people who don't want to admit they got scammed?

[Anonymous No.4857576]

>>4856589
>>4855888
There is an extremely simple answer to this.

Money laundering.

[Anonymous No.4857790]

>>4855888

It depends on the context and circumstance. Art isn't just "well done" pictures, or "expressions of emotion" from the artist. Art is very nebulous, and there are entire branches on philosophy that ask these questions with no concrete answer You seem to desire a concrete answer, but it is not so easily defined. Semiotics is able to help a bit in understanding art. The notion of semiotics goes basically like this: There aren't true binaries, as everything can be broken down further. And probably the biggest take away is that everything you and everyone else looks at is seen through a lens based on your experiences/class/race/gender/etc... Nothing is universal. Hence, some look at that image and think of it's conception and process of how it was made. The idea of the walking and drawing being something "different" and outside of the bounds of the usual studio setup is an interesting "concept". it's not necessarily about the outcome/final product of the work. Then, others see this as complete trash and nonsense. Both are valid points in their own. Lot's of modern to contemporary art are not about the work itself, but the ideas or processes of how they are made, and all sorts of other crazy things. Take relational aesthetics. In relational aesthetics the "art" is the interaction of people (sometimes unknowingly), and there exchanges or lack of within a space/or "work" of art. Obviously the downside to this thinking is "everything can be art" so people will make whatever terrible bunk and hide from criticisms by it being "art" and not garbage scribbles.