Why do people hate abstract art so much?

File: 513 KB, 1080x1490, Screenshot_20230527_114104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 27 09:41:46 2023 No.6675544 [Reply] [Original]

Why do people hate abstract art so much?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 09:46:15 2023 No.6675548 >>6675544 Context and intent. Both which are very hard to understand if you don't know the artist behind it. Abstract art without both is just blobs of ink thrown in a canvas

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 09:49:48 2023 No.6675551 >>6675548 i hated rothko before i learned more about him. now he's one of my favorite artists for making the bourgeois sit in front of 10'x7' blood red canvasses.

Anonymous Sat May 27 10:17:51 2023 No.6675572
File: 109 KB, 600x450, klee-il-castello-e-il-sole-originale-fine-art-per-soggiorno-ufficio-o-altro.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6675544
I feel like it's because they expect too much out of it. The art world often feeds this belief that Art is some kind of ultimate revelation and purpose of mankind and all that stuff.

I can assure you guys that based artists and Art critics (many of my professors and some collegues) see Art as something that you just enjoy in a zen-like state, something that makes you think interesting stuff or evoke emotions, like a good movie or book but with more... imagination? A different kind of interaction with the thought behind it? Idk hard to explain fully

Also people that hate on this stuff usually don't even see the paintings IRL which is a big deal

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 10:19:31 2023 No.6675574 >>6675572 its called dialectics (reflexivity), why are you failing literally all your classes?

Anonymous Sat May 27 10:25:01 2023 No.6675577

>>6675544
They are actually shitty, the reason the high iq and the vulgar man hates abstract art is one and the same. Really, and seriously this is the coolest thing about it, when you understand it deeply, you realize it was a front for rich art kids from New York to have crazy weird decadent parties. This is what was cool about it. But It really is shitty art, and hardly related to the modernists to me.

Modernist/expressionist/ many like 20th century pre wwii "abstract art" is brilliant and great and many of the greatest works of all time, but post wwii art went to shit, and if you haven't realized this yet you should become culturally literate. Not a joke, or your taste is dogshit.

Also the CIA was funding a lot of the critics and artists who were big during this time in the NY scne, pollock, warhol, they were paying off critics, as cold war propoganda, cause everyone thought american art was capitalist junk. Warhol leaned into capitalist junk. Much of the post war art was people finding a way for everyone to make money through critics, so this decadent elitism emerged around shitty art. I see this in a positive light, and wish i could have been there to enjoy the parties, and made some money off giving 2,000 to a critic to say I'm the next Picasso. Pollock was retarded. Rothko is retarded, Warhol was a shitter, the "masters" of post war abstract were/are all cool guys, but their art is mad shit bro. So much of PoMo art is trolling too, but the trolling got old by the 70s. And people forget that its trolling and try to make it intellectual which was part of the joke. Also the critics of the scene were half literate in art culture, and just wanted to be famous like the artists so inflated the shit out of it, a lot of it is poseur bullshit.
(1/2)

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 10:30:06 2023 No.6675581 >>6675577 >the high iq and the vulgar man hates abstract art Name one high IQ man who hates abstract art

Anonymous Sat May 27 10:33:40 2023 No.6675585

>>6675577
(Check my lucky dubs God is with me)

Anyway PoMo is shit and cringe, modernists were masters. And all art has been "abstract" if you dont understand how the old masters were abstract throughout all of history and were using symbolism, then you need to study art more man. They still life thing was a rejection of the idealist work of the monastic tradition. After the bronze age collapse there was the style of monastic art you see in illuminated manuscripts which was "idealist" in the sense that they didnt attempt to reproduce nature, they wanted to reproduce the idea. Similar to Platonism the put the ultimate expression in the idea, and as nietzsche said christianity is "Platonism for the people". Still Life was originally about putting God into the world, the same way that Christ's Flesh became bread, and you eat it at communion because God is in the world.

Watch the evolution of western art post collapse of rome, and you'll see the seed as a kind of idealism, which gets into this universal perspectivism, which gets into a kind of realism of iconography, then romanticism (putting god in nature rather than in icons), then the modernists, the pomo. this is a brief overview but its of great philosophical significance to understand these movements, the philosophies of the time, and how the paintings reflected those. PoMo was willful degradation of tradition because they were optimistic, and held out for what they always called the "return to the real" seeing themselves as a crashsite for shitty kinds of art that might bare fruit in the future through a kind of breakthrough, but it never happened and were left with shitty art.

The point of this is if you investigate any fucking school of art, you will find abstract philosophical content. So many defends of PoMo art are as culturally retarded as they paint their opponents.

Anonymous Sat May 27 10:35:08 2023 No.6675586
File: 343 KB, 1046x985, cadd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6675574
touche kek
i'm trying to not delve too deep in hegel because it fucks with my actual drawings, last time i went into a art theory binge i stopped drawing for months
also inglish not main language

Anonymous Sat May 27 10:36:42 2023 No.6675588

>>6675581
I mean as i explained i dont believe in this category "abstract art" so im basically attacking PoMo post war shit art. Which is for retards, and also its self aware retardation, even the modernists who were great artists we're trying to tell us that art was decaying and we should be afraid of this, but they managed to fragment the tradition in interesting ways to make masterworks. The "post modernists" are just legit shitty.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 10:53:25 2023 No.6675604 >>6675586 study marx instead, youll get less woo and a more exact use of the method of reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 11:06:15 2023 No.6675617 >>6675604 Bad take.

Anonymous Sat May 27 11:45:12 2023 No.6675640

>>6675604
i tried to, but it immediately became apparent that i'd need to read hegel first, and to read hegel i'd need to read kant and i would have a hard time doing that without reading aristotles and so on... it's a very time consuming thing that doesn't combine well with my figurative drawing style, and also would burn in my brain depressing ideas about art that i don't want to deal with anymore

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 12:51:56 2023 No.6675695 >>6675640 Aristotle isnt that essential before Kant, Kant could be started without knowing Aristotle, And Marx<Hegel, that poster is dumb and wrong

Anonymous Sat May 27 13:13:05 2023 No.6675709

>if you have to explain why it's beautiful, it isn't

What a retarded low IQ take. A lot of things (beyond art) become beautiful once you understand them, even if it takes years.
You can find beauty in biology or orbital mechanics, but you couldn't just expect a midwit to find them beautiful in anyway as someone would need to "explain them" first I guess.
Again, retarded take.

Anonymous Sat May 27 15:14:36 2023 No.6675845

>>6675544
I was neutral about it before I became a pro figurative painter. The disdain, discouragement and insults I get from modernists is annoying and demoralizing. The current art establishment is the most untolerant, most elitist group I have ever encountered. I do enjoy slightly melancholic themes mixed with beauty which they openly call Kitsch. Fine with me, I call their stuff trash. Not neutral anymore, I despise this crap and especially the high brow idiots circlejerking around that type of art. Even the term "art" is starting to gross me out.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 15:31:25 2023 No.6675859 File: 45 KB, 332x227, 1684033345844636.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6675581 Me

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 15:39:25 2023 No.6675867 >>6675544 Because it looks like shit. Looks like toddler shit

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 15:49:59 2023 No.6675880 >>6675544 Because it's assigned significance for reasons beyond mortal comprehensive.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 16:05:16 2023 No.6675908 >>6675544 Because it's a community filled to the brim with grifters and money laundering schemers, all pretending to be art snobs

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 16:12:50 2023 No.6675916 >>6675572 >Art before >Transcendental religious experience >Art now >It's just le cool Marvel movie guise

Anonymous Sat May 27 16:18:46 2023 No.6675921

>>6675695
yeah, i read the crit of pure reason and it was a very exhausting and slow process because i missed fundamentals from the classics, and because of this i probably didn't really get the full picture so to speak.
I think i'll stay away from philosophic systems for a long while

Anonymous Sat May 27 17:48:16 2023 No.6676070

the word abstract does not mean nowadays what it used to mean
whereas abstract mightve once been "beauty without meaning" or "a hidden meaning/up for interpretation", it instead now means "made up meaning without intent", "meaning without beauty" or "visuals without meaning OR beauty"
its not that all art needs meaning, certainly not deep meaning, it can have beauty, it can have technique... but without all of those, is it even art?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 19:14:23 2023 No.6676244 Because it doesn't illicit emotion or meaning, people have to be "educated" into the meaning or emotion behind it. It's also just a money laundering scheme. It's better to ask why should people like emotionless, cold acts of money laundering?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:00:40 2023 No.6676410 >>6675544 All post-modern art is trash.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:05:01 2023 No.6676418 >>6675544 It's outdated. Just like every artstyle that came before.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:13:55 2023 No.6676441 >>6676418 it was garbage in its prime

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:18:17 2023 No.6676451 File: 3.63 MB, 1752x6796, art is dead.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:18:34 2023 No.6676453 >>6675544 The average person has bad taste. Only artists and knowledgeable critics opinions matter

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:27:11 2023 No.6676475 They hate it makes so much money. If it didn't they wouldn't care

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:28:36 2023 No.6676479 >>6675544 Because its ugly I'd rather look at a painting of a cat or some fruit than this

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:29:21 2023 No.6676482 >>6676475 Patently untrue. Tumblr style is also hated and the money it makes compared to modern art is a fraction of a rounding error at absolute best.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:29:32 2023 No.6676483 File: 185 KB, 1170x666, fuck artists.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:30:51 2023 No.6676484 >>6676451 grim

Anonymous Sat May 27 21:31:05 2023 No.6676487

>>6675544
politics.
>It's degenerate rich people shit undermining workers
>It's degenerate Jewish shit undermining our volk
>The artist fucks kids
>Waste of tax money
>Tax evasion
>Etc.

It looks like shit and people don't like or understand it but without all of this they'd just say it sucks and move on like you would with a cringy sonic OC, they wouldn't outright HATE it.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:31:45 2023 No.6676489 >>6676475 i hate that people like what i dont like and hate what i do like. me = good you = bad simple

Anonymous Sat May 27 21:38:31 2023 No.6676499

>>6676483
>>6676451
i dont understand why a lot of (recent and I assume American) art students skip the "try-hard" part of art, execution matters more than its implied meaning or whatever. Also the dragon is clearly dumb and kitsch but he at least put the work in.

Reminds me of how stem students roll humanities classes when they take them because they are used to actually studying and typically have the intelligence to back up their work.

Anonymous Sat May 27 21:42:32 2023 No.6676509

>>6676499
Because they are lazy and want the recognition without the work, without realizing that in theory PART of the recognition is because the artist took the time to make the piece. In other words they arent really artists, just grifters in love with the idea of being an artist.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:43:10 2023 No.6676513 >>6675585 What’s a good book or course to learn about the stuff you’re talking about?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 21:56:43 2023 No.6676539 Abstract art is extremely pretentious but people that obsessively hate and complain about it are unironically NPCs

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 22:00:40 2023 No.6676546 >>6676499 >kitsch Everything that you contains pure and honest emotion is kitsch Unless it's behind five layers of irony, it's lowbrow art Just like memes apparently

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 22:07:04 2023 No.6676564 >>6676546 it's pretty sick if the assignment was make a piece for a renaissance fair. otherwise, yes, art does in fact need historicity.

Anonymous Sat May 27 22:25:11 2023 No.6676589
File: 129 KB, 2048x1061, Wall Banana.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6675544
I don't think people hate abstract art that much compared to conceptual art, read-made art, etc, but I digress.
I think the main thing people hate is the apparent lack of skill or effort, or even just any aesthetic appeal - someone nails a used condom to wall with a frame around it and call it art, and because of the standards set by the aforementioned art movements, how can anyone say otherwise?

Fuck, people always bring up picrel, but galleries are still displaying it and giving credence to the fact that these low effort middle fingers to culture are "art". Modern "art" isn't made for the people, it's made for a small social circle who sniff their own farts and spend their Fridays going to gallery openings to socialise where they have competitions of one-upmanship to see who can come up with the best BS interpretation of the meaningless shit displayed that week.
If it weren't for the internet, art would be dead.

Anonymous Sat May 27 22:29:31 2023 No.6676595

>>6676589
theres been a real rise of decadent narcissistic or my preferred term bourgeois art that contains really superficial critiques that for some reason or another sells well because its considered a profitable brand (like Ai WeiWei). everyone universally reviles it and it isn't even representative of the larger contemporary art scene but it does push much better artists into a subaltern class.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 23:03:19 2023 No.6676630 >>6675544 They unironically wouldn't care if it wasn't worth millions and millions of dollars. In a way they (the people like in OP's pic) are ruled by Mammon even more than the people who buy said art.

Anonymous Sat May 27 23:15:03 2023 No.6676648

>>6675544
I'm an art lover so I love even the low-skill art, such as Pollocks abstract peices or Duchamp's Fountain. I love how it makes certain people pissed even though art is nothing more than an image to look at with little to no tactical function. Isn't that what art is supposed to do? It makes you feel wonder, lust, even joy... but it can also make you angry, uncomfortable, and confused; it is like a mirror on the soul. If it was always female nudes or renderings of religious figures glazed in the finest oil paints then it would get boring and repetitive after a while, wouldn't it? There would be no message, or a tired one at that.. Thats just my infp analysis though.

Anonymous Sat May 27 23:34:23 2023 No.6676679
File: 678 KB, 1852x2560, bridestripped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6676648
> low skill
Duchamp's fountain was intentionally a troll piece. Pollock's car paint murals aren't that easy to recreate using the same techniques he used. same thing with rothko making a 10' mural with no visible brush strokes is hard. pic attached, is Duchamp actually trying.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 27 23:59:46 2023 No.6676737 >>6675544 luckily we have a board that knows real art, like big anime titties and sexualized animals. You're no better than those 'degenerate' postmodernist boogeymen.

Anonymous Sun May 28 00:03:10 2023 No.6676746

performative art is worse as its nothing skilled 99% of the time. every year some girl thinks shes derivative and degradingly stuffs something in their pussy/publicly masturbates like some street hobo. people are expected stay quiet and clap at her bravery.

Anonymous Sun May 28 00:04:48 2023 No.6676749

>>6676648
>Duchamp's Fountain.
How long has it been since Duchamp's Fountain though? It was an interesting and funny idea at the time sure, but now just saying any low effort thing is art "just because" is tired and boring.

People aren't angry, they were, but now they've just tuned out and art galleries aren't even culturally relevant anymore. When was the last time anyone talked about something in an art gallery, other than to simply laugh at how shit the art is?

"artists" killed art.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 00:29:35 2023 No.6676784 >>6675585 How do you go straight from "bronze age collapse" to "monastic art"? The confidence with which you babble is remarkable. Are you ChatGPT?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 01:50:20 2023 No.6676883 File: 870 KB, 744x1044, 108386038_p0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] For me its subtle foot art.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 02:30:17 2023 No.6676919 >>6675551 Sell me on him

Anonymous Sun May 28 02:46:18 2023 No.6676939

>>6675845
>disdain, discouragement and insults I get from modernists is annoying and demoralizing.

No bro that's the best part. I'm nearly pro and I just actually like painting realistic figures. Acclaim from others is irrelevant, I was artistically raised by /ic/ so when I look at my work I just think of 2008 draw threads that ripped me apart fair and square and feel total peace knowing I can actually draw and paint well. I got gud.

Idgaf about 'being an artist'. I don't even think of my work as art. I don't care. I like to draw things I see and imagine and they come out exactly the way I want them to, every time. I remember crying in frustration when I was 9 because I couldn't draw a flag rippling in the wind for a school project even though I could 'feel-see' it in my mind. My life is kinda garbage, but on paper/canvas I'm totally fucking free.

And those art establishment types seethe, because they all have tried to draw and failed themselves. They've felt the same frustration I did. And they've constructed whole ideologies and identities to hide from the fact that they failed and gave up. The more they attack what I do, the more they're seething. What I do pops their inflated bubble. The fact that I can express myself reveals that they have no clothes.

There are some abstract artists who are not antagonistic. Pretty sure they genuinely just want to make silly pictures. Those guys are all right, we get along.

Anonymous Sun May 28 03:05:45 2023 No.6676960

everyone who says shit like "its about the context/meaning BEHIND the period blood splatterings" comes off as a huge faggot akin to teachers who read way too much into a line in a poem. if a painting needs context to be appealing then it is shit. period. this is a visual medium and visual aesthetics are the only appeal to the vast majority of people viewing paintings. i bet you faggots all listen to experimental noise music and claim its soo deep mann. do you claim to like every genre but country? i dont believe these people are even capable of recognizing what they like on an instinctual level, so they try to intellectualize everything and end up coming across as extremely disingenuous. kinda sad because some abstract shit can actually look nice with no meaning or anything needed and instead of discussing the colors and lines and implications that make it work the painting is just paraded as some super deep epic commentary on whatever dumb process the artist used to make it.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 03:29:48 2023 No.6676981 >>6676960 and harry potter is the world's best literature because it appeals to the most normies.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 03:39:04 2023 No.6676986 File: 484 KB, 666x667, 1625570481434.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6676981 yes, nobody ever has to justify why harry potter rules, we all just know

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 03:43:25 2023 No.6676989 >>6676986 its literally the worst piece of fiction ive ever read.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 03:51:37 2023 No.6676996 >>6676989 Why is an adult reading children books? Lmaokek

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 03:54:13 2023 No.6676999 >>6676989 i could argue with you but nobody takes that statement seriously and it just makes you sound like a butthurt tranny. are you hideous by chance? its usually the uggos that hate all forms of beauty and try to make the world as ugly as they are

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 04:23:39 2023 No.6677020 >>6675709 There's a difference between understanding and being explained to. It's the difference between discovering truth and acknowledging consensus.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 04:25:17 2023 No.6677022 >>6675880 Money laundering is very easy to understand.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 04:30:28 2023 No.6677029 >>6676981 >>6676989 Moby Dick doesn't need context. Neither does The Republic nor Livy. Not Count of Monte Cristo or Don Quixote. Ulysses and Infinite Jest do. Guess which books are read by pseuds trying to look smart?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 04:51:09 2023 No.6677042 File: 1016 KB, 500x260, 1629336506043.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6677029 >he got filtered before even finishing the Telemachus

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 05:27:32 2023 No.6677062 >>6676648 >but it can also make you angry, uncomfortable, and confused; it is like a mirror on the soul. Maybe it's a mirror on societies lack of soul.

Anonymous Sun May 28 06:14:24 2023 No.6677081

>>6675544
I don't hate it, but I also don't care for it.

For the most part, it's those types of art that I can get an equivalent experience just finding patterns on dirt.

Unless of course, the artist managed to sort of form, without using a description, an elaborate method to make everyone, without them communicating with each other, sort of see the same patterns, and lead them to the same narrative through an abstract - then it's sort of genius, because it manages to tap into the imagination in an orderly intriguing fashion... That usually means there's a painting hidden inside the scribble, and that people do end up finding it, getting amazed by it, and then share the similar experience they end up getting from it.
That's extremely rare to find, because it actually requires a ton of effort as well as experimentation.

But, usually such art is just thrown buckets on paper and blind folded brush strokes without any planning or reason, where everyone sees whatever random pattern their minds finds and starts feeling as if it's somehow different from looking at the clouds and seeing stuff.

The hate of various artists comes due to it basically being nothing more than rich people exchanging money through nonsense means and the whole "me superior" complex of certain academics that need to "feel deep", except there's no depth to it... "Deep inc.".

Currently it's enough to just throw some trash on the wall say "It's all about the poverty", and if you pay someone enough, you'll become a
"REAL-TM" artist on display.

The real art here is how people actually buy into this crap, just in order to play-pretend as being "Deep and sophisticated" by having framed dolphin poo that cost a million dollars hanging in their living room.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 06:26:23 2023 No.6677083 >>6675544 the real question is why do these statue profile pics never learn how to create the art they admire so much?

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 06:31:05 2023 No.6677090 normies can't relate to abstract art. simple as

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 06:39:38 2023 No.6677095 File: 842 KB, 1246x745, crownofshame.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6677090 This . Maybe a lot of people see abstract art as a meaningless mess. Maybe they need to do drugs.

Anonymous Sun May 28 07:14:12 2023 No.6677114

>>6675551
>i hated rothko before i learned more about him. now he's one of my favorite artists for making the bourgeois sit in front of 10'x7' blood red canvasses.
>In 2021, one of his works sold at auction for $82.5 million

oof, how will le evil bourgeois recover from making millions off his paintings?

Anonymous Sun May 28 07:16:12 2023 No.6677115
File: 729 KB, 1000x1149, Richard Diebenkom.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6675544
You know how general audience movies have to have an exposition dump so everyone know whats going on, and there are still youtube video "ending explained"
Arty films make the audience put in the work and its more metaphor than plot. So no one likes them.

Anonymous Sun May 28 07:50:58 2023 No.6677136

>>6675544
talentless retards like in the pic from >>6676451 who have never received any meaningful emotional stimulation in their lives think that they should attempt to chase after something that is out of their reach and produce garbage thinking they've managed to put their feelings on a canvas when in reality they have as much feeling as their dead grandpa's cock. and everyone thinks these obnoxious knuckle draggers are representative of abstract art and fail to look past them and see why abstract art got big in the first place

Anonymous Sun May 28 08:16:51 2023 No.6677150

>6675585
>Anyway PoMo is shit and cringe, modernists were masters.
Most postmodern art isn't abstract, and abstraction had its biggest rise during modernism. Anyway. it's honestly baffling that you dedicate such walls of text to your Dunning-Kruger episode, but like the other guy said, I don't think you even have the IQ to type out confident-sounding bullshit, so you just asked GPT to write this drivel out for you.

>>6675544
>Why do people hate abstract art so much?
There's multiple reasons, but to simplify the popular complaint about it, it used to be that it was just people with pedestrian taste who largely thought the more like a pretty photo something is, the more art it is, so the apparent lack of representational content they could read a story out of offended them, and they refused to allow the classification. A large section of that crowd was (and still is) people who think of "art" in some extremely glorified term, as a synonym for ultimate positive aesthetic experience, and so everything straying from that ideal can't, in their mind, be art. Nowadays, as your screenshot shows, there's also terminally contrarian people who LARP online as your boomer grandpa's talk show radio host.

Anonymous Sun May 28 08:58:17 2023 No.6677175

>>6675544
I enjoy abstract works for what it is. Some abstract works may not need "context" and some may need more context. Same for figurative works. Lots of allegorical and works full of iconography I simply do not understand and was only able to understand the figures, technique, etc until I read further about it do I understand actual meaning of the work. I think people who simply say that visual works that do need more context fail because they dont get to communicate solely through visual aesthetics is one step short and lacking in the greater context of what communication is. For YOU it may not need more "context" but a lot of figurative traditionally beautiful works they actually need more context to sort of understand them, just that you are used to the language and techniques already and they seem familiar. In fact, I would argue that a lot of abstract works require less context than figurative works solely through their formal characteristics and not needing to represent a wholly-formed subject matter. I mean show them indoor European classical works that includes classical arrangement architecture, european musical instruments, local fruits, memento mori skulls, etc. how do you expect an outsider to understand it? I think many works of art historical context wise have been quite insular. For an example, show your non-artist friends Holbeins Ambassador and if they immediately understand them just by staring at said piece, though I wouldn't say that particular work is less of a visual art piece just because it requires specific cultural knowledge to get it.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 09:27:18 2023 No.6677185 >>6675544 It's shit and it looks like shit.

Anonymous Sun May 28 09:39:41 2023 No.6677196

>>6677115
but artsy films give you enough information to draw your own conclusions. unlike abstract art where you have to know that the artist was molested near a body of water which is why they use organized blocks of blue colours to regain control of their innocence.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 09:59:30 2023 No.6677214 >>6677115 this artist is amazing, thanks for posting.

Anonymous Sun May 28 10:15:03 2023 No.6677230

>>6676513
I don't know if there is one anon. Just make your own art history. I can suggest the modernists like TS Eliot, and Ezra Pound, and Joyce, they are writers who outline this kind of descent in their work.

One of Eliots greatest lines is "These fragments which i shore against my ruins."
He sees the culture degrading, fragmenting, and hes trying to light fireworks with its divine fire. His age was the ruins, and we are in deeper ruination.

Modernists were fucking scared man, thats why they were screaming with their art. Now is scarier, and made worse by the fact we can't even have the same divine fear. We are pacified. What were the artists screaming about?

Ezra Pound said "with usura hath no man a paradise on his church wall"
Art is in decay from capitalism (usura=usury). Even worse than art, the subject/object that art wishes to preach. The spirit. And if it was in decay then, how far removed do you think we are from true art now?

Why did those writer regard Dante and Homer as the real masters and themselves as diddlers, when biographers and art historians paint us a different pictures? They wished to show the way to the divine fire, which could destroy cities, "move mountains" in the biblical sense. But art has been reduced to a gay little hobby, in writing, music, and visual art. A way to pass the time. Hopefully AI will wake people up to the fact that art was a tool for a terrible ecstasy.

Read the Bible if you haven't because it'll tell you more about the Art History than any other book, and give you much beyond that.
>>6676784
Sorry anon, I know little about art between collapse of rome and post Charlemagne.

Anonymous Sun May 28 10:53:53 2023 No.6677272

>>6677029
What did you think of the symbolism at the very beginning of the Republic, when Socrates is jokingly accosted by his interlocutors? Was it meant to parallel how states are formed by force with a primitive "might makes right" logic, or am I just like, looking too deep into it, or whatever? Or is that not what you're talking about? You're talking about CONTEXT, stuff like the numerous direct quotations of Greek poets and tragedians, discussions of contemporary Athenian philosophers, references to other Greek tyrants and statesmen, and so on, something that occurs over and over throughout the Republic, and something which, if you aren't a wealthy Athenian citizen from 2400 years ago like Plato, you have no context for? Something you would need a pretentious professor to patiently explain to you?

What really triggers me is that something like Infinite Jest requires much, much less in terms of additional context to understand and appreciate if you're just a normal American living today. You've seen ridiculous sponsorships and product endorsements, so you understand what Wallace is going for with stuff like "Year of the Depend Adult Undergarment". Yes, he brings up shit like Byzantine smut, but it's totally outside the action of the plot, unlike with Plato, where you will never completely understand what these people are talking about if you've never heard of the mythological and historical figures they're constantly bringing up.

Why do you fucking retards insist on talking about shit you don't know anything about? Do you all realize you can read these books for free? Instead of listening to a fucking Eurobeat playlist while you soloqueue, you can just pirate an audiobook. Or maybe put an art history lecture on your second monitor. Jesus.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 11:33:18 2023 No.6677321 >>6677272 oh my god thank you

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 12:33:51 2023 No.6677368 >>6677136 Abstract art as most people identify got big because of literal CIA pushing as a measure to counter Soviet state realism.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 28 13:33:41 2023 No.6677430 Kant's Prolegomena is a better place to get started with his philosophy. Maybe read Hume's Treatise on Human Nature first.

Anonymous Sun May 28 13:38:01 2023 No.6677431 [DELETED]

>>6675544
Not because of the art itself but because of the pseud circlejerk that never seems to die off. Everyone knows it's bullshit and everyone's sick of it yet it just keeps going.
Yes it was groundbreaking like a century ago but now? Fuck off with your scam.

Anonymous Sun May 28 16:21:57 2023 No.6677552
File: 41 KB, 518x380, motherwell6_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6677196
another problem, abstract art is a mirror what is in a painting with no iconography is what you bring to it. Like watching clouds
but the marketing has to be about the artist, so they dramatize their lives and blow smoke.

Anonymous Mon May 29 19:19:01 2023 No.6679332

>>6675544
This is such a stupid, simplistic take.
Every art form gets richer the more you know and explore its language and forms.
Imagine showing a Tarkovsky movie to someone who's never seen a television, they'd just be overwhelmed and miss any sort of nuance and sophistication, it doesn't mean that art is only operating at its most surface level, and everything else is pretense.

Same with literature, music, videogames, whatever.

Anonymous Mon May 29 19:25:19 2023 No.6679342

>>6676960
>kinda sad because some abstract shit can actually look nice with no meaning or anything needed and instead of discussing the colors and lines and implications that make it work the painting is just paraded as some super deep epic commentary on whatever dumb process the artist used to make it.
Abstraction can have layers of sophistication without degrading into parody, crude metaphors that end up robbing it of any power.

Usually people making the argument like the image in the OP, however, aren't interested in the abstract at all, but in the simpleton art of "most rendering+much color".
Likely Fantasy slop with epic dragons and cyberpunk city scapes.

Anonymous Tue May 30 22:53:24 2023 No.6681011
File: 227 KB, 800x450, youtrippin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6676451
is this just fear-mongering? of course there are always gonna be the circlejerk of rich talentless kids but there has to be some benefit to art school?

i want to go but this is making me want to say fuck it and go into mechanics or something and learn art on my own. id love an animation job but this makes it seem like a scam

Anonymous Tue May 30 22:55:25 2023 No.6681015

>>6675544
imagine plucking a series of random notes on a guitar and publishing it as a song.

imagine plucking a single E note as loud as you can, and then having someone explain to you how it's profound because the musician was an abused black woman and it represents the purity and beauty of an E note.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 30 23:56:08 2023 No.6681086 >>6677272 idk, I seemed to get the point without being a rich athenian from 2400 years ago. So have millions of people who read it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 30 23:59:47 2023 No.6681090 File: 331 KB, 1600x1195, 1684717769038734.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6679342 >fantasy slop >>6679332 This is true, but garbage like >>6677552 isn't operating on any level, it just claims it does.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 00:01:20 2023 No.6681091 >>6681015 >noise music

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 00:15:39 2023 No.6681102 File: 1.33 MB, 1600x1041, 1A-oil-enamel-canvas-Jackson-Pollock-Museum-1948.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Why do digital artists have such layman takes on trad art?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 00:17:30 2023 No.6681104 >>6677552 >Like watching clouds So, why not selling superb paintings of clouds instead of abstract stuff?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 00:24:39 2023 No.6681111 >>6681102 >layman takes Right, why should art appeal to the average person? On another note, are you going to the fart sniffing convention next month anon?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 00:46:36 2023 No.6681134 >>6681102 Pollock was a literal nobody on the sidewalk until the CIA made him famous overnight by partnering with the New York art scene in order to counter Soviet state realism.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:00:14 2023 No.6681287 >>6675548 >Abstract art without both is just blobs of ink thrown in a canvas Which can still have aesthetic qualities on its own.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:04:19 2023 No.6681290 >>6681134 Why is that an issue? Many of the old master were specifically chosen by the rich and elite to be remember as part of history

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:04:54 2023 No.6681291 >>6681091 yes and it's exactly what you'd think. just noise. Nobody listens to it, they just pretend to like it to seem quirky

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:06:22 2023 No.6681294 >>6681134 Doesn't change the fact that I've been emotionnally moved stumbling upon a Pollock in a museum. I sat here four one hour diving in it, depise hating Pollock at that time. Isn't that a goal of art?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:08:02 2023 No.6681296 >>6681015 Nice strawman you got here.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:09:33 2023 No.6681301 >>6681294 please don't admit that you're dumb and have a weak constitution. You got dazzled by overstimulation like a deer in the headlights, it's not exactly difficult to pull off.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:10:33 2023 No.6681303 >>6681296 literally not what a strawman is moron. nice fucking nothing post.

Anonymous Wed May 31 03:17:45 2023 No.6681308

>>6681290
>>6681294
The issue is that none of his contemporaries or critics gsve him the time of day until he was pretty much selected to be a winner complete with the New York art scene to act like he ALWAYS was a winner, and since then he has become famous simply because people were told he was famous.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:17:45 2023 No.6681307 >>6681102 Look at this dude admiring paint cumshots. Anybody here can recreate that with a piece of cardboard and a gigabyte of porn.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:28:57 2023 No.6681319 File: 69 KB, 600x315, Pollock_1941.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Only low IQ artists hate abstract art because they are boxed by what they perceive should be reality. They can't imagine anything beyond what their eyes can see.

Anonymous Wed May 31 03:39:01 2023 No.6681326

>>6681319
In colors untamed,
Pollock's canvas takes its flight,
Abstract symphony.

Strokes dance and collide,
Chaos and rhythm entwined,
Masterpiece unveiled.

But wait, a strange twist,
Illusion shattered, truth bared,
A box holds disdain.

Moldy cum's grotesque face,
A jarring juxtaposition,
Art's audacious truth.

Perceptions deceived,
Beauty and repulsion clash,
Art's unsettling gaze.

Pollock's triumph lies,
In challenging our senses,
Provoking the soul.

From chaos he crafts,
A mirror to life's essence,
Art's raw potency.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:48:25 2023 No.6681338 >>6681319 Opinions like these are so tiresome. Why can't someone not like something? Why does it have to be that they also somehow have some extra [insert bad thing here]?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 03:54:59 2023 No.6681351 >>6681308 Yeah but >>6681294

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 04:01:16 2023 No.6681357 >>6681338 Because it just shows how ignorant you are. People like pollock were going forward with art and destroying the preconceptions that art should refer to something or be made the same way everytime. You are just a basic bitch, not an artist.

Anonymous Wed May 31 04:37:52 2023 No.6681409

>>6675544
People don’t tolerate abstract experimental cinema when they want to go see a film. People don’t want to read a hundred pages of avant-garde word salad poetry when they want to read a novel. People don’t want random food thrown in a blender when they want to buy a nice meal. People don’t want to look at splattered pigment when they want to see a painting.
Abstract expressionism has almost zero appeal or emotional resonance to anyone who isn’t already trying to convince themselves it’s good. You have to approach the paint fart already convinced it’s art. It’s art because you’re trying to be “cultured” with your date visiting a gallery, or you write for a magazine and you want to define that “good” is challenging, or you’re invested in it financially, or you’re an artist and it looks easy enough for you to paint and get famous.
Average people dislike this art because it means nothing to them, and they hate it because they’re told they’re uncultured for feeling that way.

Anonymous Wed May 31 04:44:52 2023 No.6681419
File: 254 KB, 1080x1336, 86329651.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6681357
nta but what if I just don't like that and don't agree? I think you and that guy are wrong.
>also, gatekeeping being an artist while talking about destroying preconceptions about art and, therefore, what becomes an artist

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 04:46:30 2023 No.6681421 >>6681357 he was going backwards and destroying the preconception that art is supposed to be good

Anonymous Wed May 31 04:49:55 2023 No.6681423

>>6677081
>Unless of course, the artist managed to sort of form, without using a description, an elaborate method to make everyone, without them communicating with each other, sort of see the same patterns, and lead them to the same narrative through an abstract - then it's sort of genius, because it manages to tap into the imagination in an orderly intriguing fashion... That usually means there's a painting hidden inside the scribble, and that people do end up finding it, getting amazed by it, and then share the similar experience they end up getting from it.
>That's extremely rare to find, because it actually requires a ton of effort as well as experimentation.
Post an example of this

Anonymous Wed May 31 04:53:17 2023 No.6681428

>>6681357
>going forward with art
Pollock was an alcoholic degenerate employed by the super wealthy (and the CIA) to make literal trash high culture. And now moron plebs like you say the no effort trash they use to make and launder money with is treasure.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 07:12:59 2023 No.6681505 >>6675581 Everybody hates it. It's just that midwit bourgeois types pretent to like it for clout.

Anonymous Wed May 31 10:56:30 2023 No.6681661
File: 209 KB, 1200x800, Rene Gruau.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6681015
So in your mind, some soulless hyper rendered Concept Art, has inherently more artistic value than any Gruau (or equivalent)? I'm not saying "shit on a canvas" type of gimmicks have much merit, but there's a difference between finding elegance in the essential, and just playing the fine arts market.

Anonymous Wed May 31 11:13:38 2023 No.6681681

The most retarded thing about these discussions is always people trying to delineate what "is art" and what "isn't art". It's just a word, who tf cares, you can define it how you want and then various things will fall inside or outside it depending on your definition. You're not saying anything about the world, only about your own definition. And even if abstract art is "not art", that doesn't really stop people from hanging it on a wall and looking at it, and I don't see why anyone would be concerned about enjoying something which is "not art" as long as they're enjoying it.

Anonymous Wed May 31 11:28:14 2023 No.6681694

>>6681681
Nobody is saying rhat people cant enjoy abstract shapes and paint splatters akd whatnot. Its when you have all these people in elite cliques and entire multimillion dollar institutions (i.e., modern art museums) that hold them out as something to ejaculate endlessly over and you're supposed to ostensibly pay for the "privilege" to go and see. And then when you get there, its not enough that they have your money, you now also read an entire two paragraphs summarizing why the entirely blue square canvas with a single green dot on it represents the third world's rejection of the Kantian imperative or some stupid shit.

Anonymous Wed May 31 11:35:25 2023 No.6681700

>>6681694
..and why do you get mad at that? I don't get mad at soccer even though it has elite cliques and multimullion dollar institutions and takes resources from law enforcement and people ejaculate over it endlessly and you have to pay to go see it and then when you're there it's just boring gay shit. What I do is I just don't engage with soccer. Why is it so different with art? When you earnestly look inside yourself for the reason for your anger, what is it? (asking unironically)

Anonymous Wed May 31 12:22:23 2023 No.6681731

>>6681694
you know. i feel, for every one that's useless shit like that, theres also usually at least 1 or 2 cool paintings, or bronze sculpture work or textile work, or interesting catalogs of photography. Perhaps you should ignore the modern art you dont like and seek out that which brings you joy.

Anonymous Wed May 31 12:29:15 2023 No.6681740

>>6681357
nta but that kind of argument, "if you don't like it that's because you're just too stupid to appreciate it" is often used manipulatively. it makes people who utter it feels smarter, like they're part of an elite club.

I'd say, enjoy your abstract art as much as you want, why not. but as soon as it's priced millions, it becomes increasingly obvious that it is, at least, being instrumentalised: it's literally creating money out of thin air.

Anonymous Wed May 31 12:29:58 2023 No.6681742

>>6681700
The issue I have is that when many subversive movements started, it was because you have actual artists who were tired of the old convetion and wanted to do something new. I dont care much for Picasso's cubism but I can respect it because he intentionally wanted to leave his older work behind to portray them differently. But now you have these new artists who were never trained and so its just.... that. And they're held out as some kind of visionary. Like, no, all you did was take a wooden surfboard, drill out a 1x2 inch square hole, and put in a tiny tv monitor that plays static 24/7. And now suddenly its "art" and has an appraised value that none of us can afford if we wanted to buy it. Its just a giant game used as an investment vehicle for the rich.

Anonymous Wed May 31 12:42:28 2023 No.6681759

>>6681742
>Like, no, all you did was take a wooden surfboard, drill out a 1x2 inch square hole, and put in a tiny tv monitor that plays static 24/7.
Where have you seen that?
And are you surprised that democratization of art production led to a larger amount of not-so-great art? That's the same with music of videos.

>And now suddenly its "art" and has an appraised value that none of us can afford if we wanted to buy it.
No but where have you seen that I can't affort a TV playing static?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 12:53:25 2023 No.6681770 >>6681759 This was in Boston, if I am remembering correctly. Harvard's modern art collection. Also, I'm talking about the appraised value of the entire "art piece," not just the value of a tiny CRT playing static. Obviously the latter is cheap.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 12:57:10 2023 No.6681772 >>6681770 If financial shenanigans is what you care about, there's literally 1000x worse things to worry about.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 13:06:26 2023 No.6681778 >>6681772 nta but meh... financial shenanigans are orchestrated by the very same persones who fuck up the planet, crush the workers and make the peoples hating each others

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 13:12:02 2023 No.6681782 >>6681772 I never said it was the only thing I worry about, but we are discussing modern art and the topic is about why some people might not like it, so....

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 18:32:32 2023 No.6682175 File: 213 KB, 267x199, 1431566741498.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >there are actual idiots on this board defending abstract and post modern art You can't make this shit up.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 18:42:20 2023 No.6682189 >>6681778 >>6681782 I mean to say that hurr durr money laundering seems more like a post-hoc rationalization for hating abstract art, than an actual reason for focussing so much anger and hate on it

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 18:47:04 2023 No.6682192 File: 79 KB, 800x533, Meet the artist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How can ic compete

>>	Anonymous Wed May 31 18:51:52 2023 No.6682195 >>6675916 >It's just le cool Marvel movie guise who are you quoting? that's not what he said, retard

Anonymous Wed May 31 18:58:23 2023 No.6682207

>>6675544
A bunch of reasons
>It's not populist, and it represents freedom of artists to do as they please, so communists and fascists can't stand it.
>People pay a lot of money for it and the average room-temp-IQ wageslave is jealous because they're salty having to go to work that they hate every day.
>Conspiracy theorists hate the CIA and CIA saw that it was a useful propaganda tool, when the only backlash against US government using it as such was that taxpayer money went into it. CIA could do the same, but clandestine.
>Some of it embraces topics such as feminism or colonialism, which makes working-class white cishets salty because it threatens their cultural hegemony.
>Museums are tax-funded institutions so free market capitalists and Ancaps hate it.
With these, we've already covered 90+% of the American public. The good news is that the opinion of literally none of these people matters. They'll be replaced by AI soon enough.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 1 14:19:22 2023 No.6683297 File: 471 KB, 1152x1102, banana.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] can anyone redpill me on the banana in a wall thing? i don't get it. is it really considered "art" or is it just a meme?

Anonymous Thu Jun 1 14:37:28 2023 No.6683315

>>6683297
Its attached to a name of an already famous artist so thats why artfags will consider it for debate in the first place. Also it goes back to Duchamp (readymade) and then Nauman (everything done by an artist in his studio is art).
As for thr OP ots not abstract art itself that people dont like. Just the gay little claims and texts that go with it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 1 14:45:02 2023 No.6683326 >>6676883 Needs some big green stink lines coming out of her shoes and off her feet

Anonymous Thu Jun 1 15:54:49 2023 No.6683404

>>6683297
It was a meme, but then a bunch of normies got salty, and that allowed the upper classes that consume art as a commodity to differentiate between themselves and the lower classes by embracing it. This largely came from older traditions of embracing artistic autonomy as a class signifier.
Then the wageslave-working classes keep raging against the banana on the wall because it's expensive and the rich people like it, or at least pretend to. Doing so they differentiate their social class from the upper classes, and can better define their social position.
It's all tribalism, all the way down.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 1 16:02:27 2023 No.6683409 >>6681111 >only makes art to appeal to the average normie kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 1 16:06:46 2023 No.6683415 >>6682189 Oh right, I agree

Anonymous Fri Jun 2 07:26:23 2023 No.6684515

>>6675577
>everyone thought american art was junk
Not really, America, like Spain, and mostly England fucked off to go focus on their own art movements inspired by their way of life, prior to the 20th century. Americans focused on nature, among other things, for example. The reason America became the center of modern art, was because of WW2. A lot of artist fled Europe, even after the war, or already emigrated to America. Marcel DuChamp did this for example. Black Mountain college was founded by German immigrants for example. America was untouched by the ravages of war, and where the money was to be made.

Anyway, art movements were already moving away from the traditional to more abstract forms. You see this in Europe, even before the end of the 19th century. Prior to that, artist were beholden to strict rules, due to art institutions, and the buyer.

In short, you're a retard, who wasted 10 minutes of his life writing shitty b8.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 07:29:43 2023 No.6684517 >>6676499 No, it's the same as it always has been. >american Rent free

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 07:31:04 2023 No.6684519 >>6676499 Also, stem students know how to study, but it doesn't mean they're smart. I've met many of stem graduates who fail basic fucking logic, and rational.

Anonymous Fri Jun 2 08:08:39 2023 No.6684529

>>6676749
Art galleries are still relevant, and every once in awhile, something from one makes headlines. Either something sells for an absurd price or people interested in art see it. Modern art hasn't been a thing since the 80's (at most), and yet you're still seething.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 09:24:58 2023 No.6684581 >>6676883 Can't enjoy these without think what a pain in the ass must have been the painting process

Anonymous Fri Jun 2 09:50:32 2023 No.6684595

>>6684519
It baffles me those people can even graduate university. It's like that stephanie melogza girl who ran over and killed two people with her car and was laughing and ignoring the officer informing her of the situation. She was due to graduate from nursing school.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 14:34:28 2023 No.6684766 >>6675548 It still is blobs of ink thrown on a canvas with or without those, though

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 14:41:54 2023 No.6684775 >>6679332 funny that you use Tarkovsky - a known hack fraud and pseud with movies about nothing - defending other hack frauds and pseuds

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 16:26:14 2023 No.6684874 >>6675581 im not tell u my iq but i will tell u 99% of abstract anything is not only hogwash but even more likely, hogfilth

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 16:39:00 2023 No.6684894 >>6676679 the green box is amazing. when Duchamp really wanted to do something he damn well did it. I really want to go see etant donnes sometime

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 2 23:44:20 2023 No.6685356 File: 1.96 MB, 1972x2206, splat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Everyone thinks abstract painting is easy until they try it and end up exposing their lack of technique. Can you tell which is the real Pollock in picrel?

Anonymous Fri Jun 2 23:46:26 2023 No.6685357

>>6684529
>Modern art hasn't been a thing
When most people say "modern art", they don't mean the art movement, you brainlet; they're talking about art made in modern times, recently, not too long ago, etc.

>Either something sells for an absurd price
Oh wow, that makes galleries relevant to society...
> or people interested in art see it.
Which is mostly no-one, because the "art" is shit, which is the problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 03:47:00 2023 No.6685538 >>6676737 both anime and furry art can be kino. it's a huge medium that you can work with. far better than splashing random garbage on a canvas

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 04:24:52 2023 No.6685556 >>6685356 >Can you tell which is the real Pollock in picrel? No

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 04:39:54 2023 No.6685561 >>6685356 none are

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 04:40:03 2023 No.6685562 >>6685356 >Pollock CIA backed bitch used to destroy realism who had too many communist artists

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 04:42:10 2023 No.6685565 >>6685357 they ought to learn the correct terms then before commenting on the subject

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 04:43:22 2023 No.6685566

>>6681419
the last sentence just means i think you should be obliged to take art history courses to be an artist and to appreciate art more
>>6681421
t. draws anime porn on a shitty chinese tablet
>>6681428
ok chud
>>6681740
>it makes people who utter it feels smarter, like they're part of an elite club.
yeah, if you study art history you are a part of a small elite club of people that knows better than to spout stupid common sense about art.
>but as soon as it's priced millions, it becomes increasingly obvious that it is, at least, being instrumentalised: it's literally creating money out of thin air.
what? artists like pollock are considered unique in the sense that they revolutionized art and changed it forever. their importance explain the cost of their works, you are basically buying history itself. its like if people were selling einsteins original doctorate paper and retards like you were:"but why? its just letters written on paper lol, anyone can write anything"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 04:43:27 2023 No.6685567 >>6685562 socialist realism wasn't realism it was commie propaganda

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 04:45:44 2023 No.6685570 >>6685562 LOL, it was realism (the art movement) that first questioned academic art you stupid. since the enlighment and the beggining of the 19 century people were trying to break in a way or another from the academic "realistic" style

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 05:05:10 2023 No.6685591

>>6685566
Your reasoning holds (personally, I disagree that things like Leonardo's original notebooks have immense intrinsic value because whatever, but I'll agree nevertheless, as the point of view is common in society).

However, your premise that Einstein and Pollock have the same historical impact on society is laughable. Nearly everyone on Earth today know who Einstein is. Pollock, not so much.

And that's not just a popularity contest: the real, tangible impact that Einstein's discoveries had are tremendous: you wouldn't have working GPS for instance (daily civil impact, but also military impact); his popularity (he asked for it) and work also contributed to the first atomic bomb (hence, atomic energy, without which we would be discussing right now).

The likelihood that we'll remember Einstein in a few centuries is high. Pollock, not so much.

> yeah, if you study art history you are a part of a small elite club of people that knows better than to spout stupid common sense about art.
If you really study art history, you study art through space and time, over millennia, all over the Earth. The development of the last century, Pollock in particular, are peanuts in comparison.

Besides, I've just recently found https://www.lib.usm.edu/legacy/spcol/exhibitions/anti-comm/activism_pay-2.html point 22 and 23 via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36155204&p=2:

> 22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
> 23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

> retard
Yeah.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 06:18:10 2023 No.6685630 >>6675544 If it's impossible to distinguish between something low skill and high skill, there is no distinction. Any attempt at explaining this away is nothing more than an exercise in manipulation and narcissistic word games. That's it.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 06:27:59 2023 No.6685635

>>6685591
>However, your premise that Einstein and Pollock have the same historical impact on society is laughable. Nearly everyone on Earth today know who Einstein is. Pollock, not so much.
Even if they dont know about pollock personally, no doubt anyone that see contemporary art will see an artist influenced by pollock directly or indirectly.
>And that's not just a popularity contest: the real, tangible impact that Einstein's discoveries had are tremendous: you wouldn't have working GPS for instance (daily civil impact, but also military impact); his popularity (he asked for it) and work also contributed to the first atomic bomb (hence, atomic energy, without which we would be discussing right now).
You could say this about virtually every artist ever because of this "practical" thinking of yours. of course you wont see a car moved by a pollock painting, but he is a major painter of contemporary art and of course a big source of inspirations and influence to the rest subsequent artists of contemporary artists (today).
>The likelihood that we'll remember Einstein in a few centuries is high. Pollock, not so much.
I am not denying this. first because people in the world are obsessed with "practical" matters and subjects, math and sciences appears as a gods to people today. second because art history is rarely taught anywhere. who in the world knows about the importance of ingres, david, coubert, delacroix, etc? people only care to remember some renassaince artists and rarely one or two baroque ones. and despite all of this artists, with art being derivative, drinks off the sources of the past all the time.
>If you really study art history, you study art through space and time, over millennia, all over the Earth. The development of the last century, Pollock in particular, are peanuts in comparison.
OK mr third world. You also can say this about any artist ever. Ingres was once big, now forgotten, Cezane? the same, seurat? david? gauguin? vuillard?

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 06:32:29 2023 No.6685638

>>6685635
CONTINUATION:
all that was once famous and influential and now are forgotten. Pollock is still influential because we are still doing contemporary art like he was when he revolutionized art. in the future he too will be forgotten and his works will lost value, but today he still is our (artists) da vinci.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 06:42:02 2023 No.6685642 >>6675544 You pretend to surprise me with something a monkey or a baby could do? >kys

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 10:41:11 2023 No.6685760

>>6685635
Your mind is set to
> Pollock is good®
And you're completely oblivious to anything that goes against this.
There are two main cases:
1) You're baiting (this is one regular thread after all) (about 80% chance);
2) You're unwilling to admit you are, at least partially, wrong (about 20% chance)

Hence, I must leave it to you, as an exercise, to refute your own arguments, for I have better things to do.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 11:25:34 2023 No.6685782

>>6675544
Because it represents perfectly well what happened to mankind after the second industrial revolution. You went from impressionism and art nouveau to fucking finger painting scribbles with blood and shit and bananas taped on a canvas or bad pictures of sauce cans, and the funny part is that it was ALWAYS all made up shit for money laundering and scamming retards, but as time passed people took it straight like if there was something legitimately creative about it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 12:40:00 2023 No.6685804 File: 2.25 MB, 1512x1800, 106972absdl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] There's some abstract stuff that resonates with me, but it's often stuff that I would have never ran in to without digging through public domain sites.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 12:42:30 2023 No.6685805 File: 2.53 MB, 1800x1769, 100267absdl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 12:43:44 2023 No.6685806

>>6685635
Imagine saying someone peddling some intangible abstract bullshit is on the same level or had a similar impact to einstein. Have you ever considered the importance of the subject matter these bullshit painters are even trying to tackle? You can say a bullshit painter had such a groundbreaking impact on the art of bullshit but it's still bullshit at the end of the day.

They neither created something practical, nor had they made leaps in the art of depicting the real and concrete. All they've done is become an example for other bullshit painters to emulate because they were told so. But let's be real, bullshit is bullshit, just a way to feel like you're being deep on an imaginary level without any actual tangible impact on the real world other than moving money around

At least porn leaves an impact on my dick

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 12:46:36 2023 No.6685811

>>6685630
I’ve never seen a pollock hater critique his painting on a technical level other than calling it random drips. Which proves that they don’t know anything about brushwork, color theory, or composition. The same person probably praises 17th century baroque paintings but also can’t tell us why they’re technically good either, other than that the drawing is pretty good. Bunch of nerds raised on MTG card art who think skill is in the likeness of the drawing.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 13:35:30 2023 No.6685840

>>6675544
i dont think people hate ALL abstract art; patterns, mosaics, unclear shapes etc can have an aesthetic appeal
i think the hate starts at the point where you have to be told it's art for you to know that it's supposed to be art. There's plenty of abstract art that wouldn't even be looked at if not for the fact people saw it up in an exhibit or attached to someone's name

And at that point where do you draw the line for what meaning you find in things? You could look at some random trash and see just as much. I could close my eyes and come up with whatever I want.
It makes the actual art the most redundant component of the art. It feels like it's used by normies and NPCs a lot as an excuse to think or feel when they could just be doing that anyways but won't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 13:41:41 2023 No.6685848 >>6675544 Not pleasant to the eye.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 13:44:41 2023 No.6685851

>>6681011
Art is all a scam, Anon.
You go to art school to network and get a piece of paper i.e. the degree.
You can only network if you already have connections or are already at a pro drawslave level or willing to slave away for pennies at some internship until the next drawslave fresh out of art school who is also desperate to break into the industry comes along.
Or if you're lucky enough find another art student and you suck each other off, i mean, you support each other.
>go into mechanics or something and learn art on my own
Do that. Art isn't a stable industry and it's oversaturated as fuck. For one guy that works at an animation studio for less than min wage, there are countless other artists starving and would love to take your place for even less pay because they all think that is going to either be their big break or look good on their cv.

And if you're relatively sane, have average 105IQ or aren't a sociopath; stay away from artists for your own sake.
I wish i would never found out about art communities but just kept drawing the shit i wanted to draw.
Dealing with artists made me hate art and if you stick around you will hear this and come to understand this sentiment.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 14:31:25 2023 No.6685868 File: 264 KB, 620x597, what do you represent.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6675544

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 14:32:01 2023 No.6685870 >>6685851 Why are you even on /ic/ if you hate all art, industry, galleries, and artists so much? Just to practice writing essays anout things you hate like a facebook poster? LMAO

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 15:38:45 2023 No.6685918

>>6685566
>ok chud
You like Pollock for the same reason furries like their ugly Patreon bullshit, or anime coomers like their waifu shit. It's this comfort zone for you to wallow in. All the better it's ugly, unchallenging, and easy to produce.
Also Pollock was literally CIA funded. The agency disclosed their support after decades of rumor. It's amazing how left "counter-culture" is completely comfortable with that the fact they would have died on the vine without state support from the world's #1 superpower. From the most corrupt branch of the government no less.
>>6685868
This type of gaslighting is why normal people hate modern art.
When taxpayers see their city spend a million of a statue that's a meaningless chunk of metal, their city museums filled with scribbled canvases, all divorced from any culture, history, or ANY LITERAL SUBSTANCE, this garbage non-answer is what they're told. Self-conscious academics and wannabe artists who won't explain themselves because, fundamentally, they can't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 15:51:17 2023 No.6685928 >>6684581 if I had to guess, they painted over 3d models at least for the environment

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 15:59:54 2023 No.6685937
File: 3.60 MB, 3504x2564, 1684969954453570.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6685918
>When taxpayers see their city spend a million of a statue that's a meaningless chunk of metal, their city museums filled with scribbled canvases, all divorced from any culture, history, or ANY LITERAL SUBSTANCE, this garbage non-answer is what they're told. Self-conscious academics and wannabe artists who won't explain themselves because, fundamentally, they can't.
yeah I find abstract art boring and ugly for the most part. seeing tax money spent on it to put it in public spaces is depressing. art that's beautiful and inspirational is much preferred

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 16:48:01 2023 No.6686004
File: 28 KB, 500x316, 1665060160169299.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6685868
This is so fucking stupid, the guy is not claiming to be an artist, he's also not the one trying to put himself in a museum nor claiming he's a master.
I also like how the art itself is the one speaking because having the artist put people down would be more accurate, since such people tend to hate the average man but would also give a real reason why people hate such art and their creators.
Another thing, if you asked the average person what they represent, they'd tell you and have a lot to say, unlike the typical abstract artist jackass.
Lastly, the kind of person that believes abstract art is real art and has the slightest bit of respect for it is the kind mindless animal that falls for brainwashing and propaganda, since the CIA basically made the movement popular with such tools to serve such purposes.
If you meet someone that likes abstract at you have met a mindless hivemind insect in human form.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 17:09:32 2023 No.6686034

>>6686004
>I also like how the art itself is the one speaking because having the artist put people down would be more accurate
This is true. The cartoon has it backwards. The painting says literally fucking nothing irl. There is nothing in paint splatters that demand "What do you represent?!" from the average viewer. That is the bullshit conversation about the painting, not the painting itself, which the cartoonist conflates to be the same thing to ignore the original criticism.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 17:12:39 2023 No.6686041

>>6685760
Pollock is good because of his efforts on expanding what it means to do art and his studies on art.
>no but he is bad tho, wheres the cute women?
You cant even define what is good or bad art, who is a good or bad artist. Being pleasant to your niggercattle ignorant sensibilities is not a standart everyone should follow.
>>6685806
>They neither created something practical, nor had they made leaps in the art of depicting the real and concrete.
And? I guess you cant fathom how artists in the past got tired of the same ol' shit they did for centuries. Creating something practical? Are artists masons or carpenters now? Or are we photographers to be bound to only depict reality? We do whatever the fuck we want, faggot.
>All they've done is become an example for other bullshit painters to emulate because they were told so
what the fuck are you talking about? you do wathever you want. who is forbidding you from dont doing that? you just have to recognize that he is important and influential today to a lot of artists and basically all of subsequent contemporary art (even the anime shit you worship).
>just a way to feel like you're being deep on an imaginary level without any actual tangible impact on the real world other than moving money around
Because artists of the past had such a great impact on society doing portraits for the church and the aristocracy, wow. if you dont think art has the power to impact society why are you even here? but i guess your shitty anime drawings will start a war or power a house lol. if academic salons still existed today i bet they would devour your shitty beg art.
>>6685918
comfort zone is doing the same academic style painting for centuries. People like pollock has far bigger balls doing whatever the fuck they wanted then you and the tens of thousands that tried to copy the old masters and do the same old shit.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 17:24:50 2023 No.6686055

>>6686041
>comfort zone is doing the same academic style painting for centuries.
Bullshit. Writing a novel that contains a defined statement of the human condition, which anyone can parse and judge you for, and contrast with how you fell short of the greats, is far more daunting than producing a book of random word poetry + a "daring" artist statement. Visual art is the same. There's nothing daring about retreating into the cloister of art intelligentsia who divorce themselves from anyone's opinion but their own, and purposefully make their work opaque to keep it that way.
You think Pollock had balls because he's the one who was chosen to be famous. "Doing the same old shit" are you retarded? Objective representation has gone through endless change over thousands of years of recorded human history. You are the one pushing narrow, shallow minded bullshit.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 17:31:00 2023 No.6686062

>>6686055
Also, forgot to add
>the tens of thousands that tried to copy the old masters and do the same old shit
Just lol at your audacity to call others copycat hacks from the fucking modern art world, where people copy Pollock, Rothko, Malevich, etc. almost IDENTICALLY while pretending to break new ground. How you people don't die from methane poisoning sniffing your own farts is beyond me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 3 17:54:25 2023 No.6686087 >>6683297 In my opinion, it's a mockery. It's meant to show that if you say something is art, everyone will come up with a million reasons why it IS art, showing how meaningless and not attached to any fact of the matter art is.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 18:26:14 2023 No.6686130

Here's some bite sized hard facts to help you out of your confusion:
Abstract art is a scam. Pollock fucking sucks. But they both deserve their place, because art is all fucking fluff. It changes according to which way you look at it
That's why abstract art is shit. But it's also art

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 18:30:50 2023 No.6686137

>>6686041
> I feel very smart about myself because I've opened a composition book, and ow boy ami so smart that I have APPLIED THE KNOWLEDGE ON POLLOCKS.
> nobody in here is ever did this, for otherwise they would all agree with me and feel as smart as I am
Ah no wait a minute.

Yeah, that's the regular Pollockbaiter. I can't fathom the mindset. It's like pixel schizo or Sorolla anon. You guys really, really have nothing better to do than trying to get random Internet people enraged over bullshit?

Imagine you'd spend that time actually doing something useful. For crying out loud, that's so pathetic.

Anonymous Sat Jun 3 23:05:40 2023 No.6686433

>>6683297
>you walk through a gallery and see a banana duct taped to a wall.
>you stop
>"why is there a banana ducked taped to a wall?
> Is that supposed to be art?
>its got a name card, why is this here, this isn't art
>coop and seeth for five mins while the piece has you completely arrested for, and you'll keep thinking about it for days.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 4 18:56:15 2023 No.6687409 >>6682175 How are they any worse than all the anons on 4chan that defend anime art and think the highest form of art is cute anime girls? They are literally the same level tunnel vision retards.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 5 15:38:52 2023 No.6688648 >>6687409 If anime fags take over all of fine art, most museums, and all of academia, you will see a similar level of vitriol towards them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 5 16:48:09 2023 No.6688742 >>6675709 Do you have a Rick and Morty tattoo?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 5 16:48:55 2023 No.6688744 >>6687409 No one defends anime at the highest form of art you liar. You see people preferring it to western animation and you interpret it in a fucking retarded way out of butthurt.

Anonymous Mon Jun 5 17:25:19 2023 No.6688801

>>6683297
It's meant to convey the idea that "art" is intrinsically worthless. Taping a banana to a wall takes no effort, the materials cost less than a dollar, and whatever resale value it could have is going to rapidly drop when the banana starts rotting. It is a critique of itself.
So, if upon seeing the banana you thought that modern art is fucking trash, you've already understood it. That's what it's trying to say.
A lot of modern art actually shares this message, and I think most people who see it intuitively understand it, even if they can't always put it to words.

Anonymous Mon Jun 5 20:55:08 2023 No.6689008

>>6675709
I mean yes, every literal piece of shit is gorgeous if you think about their broader role in nature and take some time to ponder the various shades of brown they are made of and the complexity of their odor. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to open up a poop gallery where the local crackheads smear their poop on the wall.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 5 20:55:55 2023 No.6689009 >>6685538 Ok, post kino furry or anime art, i can do with a good laugh right now

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 5 21:01:30 2023 No.6689015 File: 368 KB, 1080x1362, foreverial.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6689009

Anonymous Mon Jun 5 21:21:09 2023 No.6689032

>>6681102
They weren't introduced to fine art through any real interest. You know, those funny animations designed to be mass appealing products? That's what they've been fed all their life. So ofcourse they only know of the McDonalds menu, and ofcourse the manchildren will cry "shit" when given an alternative to their factory paste tendies. And ofcourse they will never try anything new, because they're limp smoothed brain will be deprived of internet attention/dopamine for one second too long.
The purpose of an artist is to egotistically proclaim that their taste deserves to exist beyond their own mind and soul and express it unto the world, for better and for worst. Most digital artists only know how to consume and be praise for it. Damn the colloquialism, they are not artist in any meaningful sense.

>>6677196
I tend to lean on symbolism and even Jungian archetypes to pull more meaning from pieces, but from my experience, the only worthwhile experience you can get from a raw abstract piece without exterior knowledge is purely aesthetic interest. It look nice; simple as.
As for the pomposity from metro dwelling pseudo-intellectuals who can only derive pleasure from art by spewing their inane phenomenological interpretations over it, should promptly kill themselves. Preferably after leaving nothing for their parasitic children and trophy cucked "partners" behind.

Anonymous Mon Jun 5 21:54:54 2023 No.6689060

>>6683297
>just a meme
>or art
1. memes are art
2. the fact you keep bringing it up is proof of how culturally influential and thought provoking it actually is
3. Tasteless hacks will use point 1 and 2 to say that it's "good" art
Do not let the tasteless hacks get away with it. Just say it's art and that it's really bad art, then move on and never speak of it again.
>inb4 but if """we""" let this be called art, then bla bla bla postmodernism bla bla bla traditions-
It is decided by the artist making it if it is and isn't art, not the filthy slack-jawed consumer. The viewer is IRRELAVENT.
>inb4 art can exist in a void
The artist can, so fuck off with you phenomenological bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 5 22:18:36 2023 No.6689077 >>6675544 >art has to be beautiful WRONG

Anonymous Tue Jun 6 14:54:26 2023 No.6690149

>>6675544
>You see, you must first be gaslit to enjoy it

Even a grandma living in the outbacks raising sheep will understand the beauty of Michaelangelo’s works
You don’t need an academic degree to appreciate art, because art in its essence can be universally appreciated

Some ‘art’ just lacks that essence

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 6 15:54:39 2023 No.6690198 abstract art in the pure definition of the word has existed since the beginning of art. but this new art claims the title for itself while being deliberately offensive and being more random.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 6 16:07:22 2023 No.6690211 >>6681086 did you also understand shakespeare completely in your high school english class? and are the people who spend years analyzing shakespeare's works just reading too much into it?

Anonymous Tue Jun 6 16:13:16 2023 No.6690216

>>6689077
Same as in music. It doesn't have to sound good to be art, but just be aware that it is annoying as fuck and don't whine when no one wants to be pestered by it. Yes you can make ugly paintings and still be an artist with something to say, it's just that many react by berating the "uneducated" public, instead of just accepting that no one wants to see ugly stuff.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 6 16:16:58 2023 No.6690219 File: 87 KB, 1280x720, 1375934752.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6675544 It insists upon itself

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 6 16:18:14 2023 No.6690221 >>6690216 Comparison with food works too > Yes, it tastes like shit, but it's not, and it has been beefed up to provide a complete meal.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 8 18:27:04 2023 No.6693125 >>6681423 Those AI images of Pepe the Frog that look like other things

Anonymous Thu Jun 8 20:15:27 2023 No.6693236

>>6675544
I don't think it's inherently bad, I just don't think it's something that should or has to be sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars nor that is on the same technical or intellectual level as classical paintings.
You obviously require skill to do painting and even abstract art has its rules and needs some of that to pick the right colors, but a Pollock is far from a Goya or Thomas Cole.
I think that the discourse of "you don't understand it" is what people despise the most, because most of the time there isn't anything to understand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 9 04:26:20 2023 No.6693738 >>6677230 That's so fucking cool. Thanks for sharing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 9 19:53:30 2023 No.6694447 File: 214 KB, 972x786, based.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Based ?

Anonymous Fri Jun 9 22:37:00 2023 No.6694613

>>6675544
>this shit on a canvas is shit
>UMMMM OK BUT DO YOU EVEN KNOW THE CONTEXT OF WHAT SCHNEKLEBERG WAS SAYING IN HIS CRITICIZM OF PEEPEEPOOPOO???
If you want to make a 'statement' or 'criticism' or whatever, just right an essay lol. Everyone gets the joke Duchamp was making when he signed a urinal and put it on a plinth and people looked at, it's not that deep at all. And it is a practical joke, it's not art. And the joke got old pretty fast, and it's beyond stale after the last century of imitators. It's shit.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 9 23:20:54 2023 No.6694658 At first I wondered what Duchamp has to do with Pollock but it makes sense because the wikipedia article on abstract art mentions them one after the other. That's probably where the redditors and chatbots itt are getting their knowledge base

Anonymous Fri Jun 9 23:28:26 2023 No.6694667

>>6676648
>but it can also make you angry, uncomfortable, and confused
So is killing someone but that's not art
Art should be uplifting, because doing things that people don't like, is low hanging fruit, and you aren't a master artist because your art "makes people angry, and anger is an emotion!"
Just because people don't strive to make other people angry, you didn't discovered a magical niche thing that nobody "explored" or that you are exclusively good at.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 9 23:47:50 2023 No.6694693 >>6694658 There's always one of you dimwits that learned about abstract art freshman year and then act like you've got secret knowledge. You have to be a drooling retard to not draw a connection between Duchamp and Pollock.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 10:43:11 2023 No.6696316 >>6676679 Rothko stuff is mesmerizing . It seems simple and dumb but then you start thinking and realize it isn’t

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 11 10:45:37 2023 No.6696317 >>6677029 Livy and The Republic require a lot of context.

Anonymous Mon Jun 12 15:47:07 2023 No.6697908

>>6675544
just like people don't have inner monolgue, some people cannot imagine what another person was thinking. looking at a Pollock and not thinking "i wonder what this is about?" and instead becoming mad in a sense about not being given the meaning is a sign of something.
it doesn't matter if pollock, using the tweets example, was meant to be beautiful or not, but what is your reaction to it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 19:37:39 2023 No.6698128 >>6697908 Right, because when an a child's scribble is on a canvas, and hung on a gallery's wall, it's up to me to make the work good by finding meaning, and not at all up to the artist to make the work any good or convey any intended message.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 12 23:21:26 2023 No.6698450 >>6698128 why not?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 00:01:00 2023 No.6698495 >>6683297 That banana is not art. The lad who ate it while other people were busy arguing if it's art — now that's art.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 01:42:13 2023 No.6698568 >no effort >no talent >it's ugly

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 01:45:49 2023 No.6698572 >>6676883 Why are her legs so long?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 09:47:56 2023 No.6698918 >>6675581 All mathematicians I have met, but I am sure you are much smarter

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 09:52:03 2023 No.6698920 >>6676679 At least he tried

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 11:21:34 2023 No.6698942

>>6698450
Because I can find meaning in anything, including just rubbish blowing in the wind, the beauty of nature etc.
An artist's work should be a more filtered experience than what I'd get just looking at any ordinary thing. At the very least, I should be able to appreciate it's beauty or show of skill.

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 13:18:23 2023 No.6698988

if someone makes abstract art and tries to sell it (figuratively and literally), they are passing themselves off as some kind of genius with special insight into design and art, that they had innately without having to have much training. they want me to form an abstract meaning in viewing it and through my effort i should consider him a genius. fuck that guy.

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 13:53:21 2023 No.6699009
File: 251 KB, 1280x874, the-raft-of-the-medusa-1819(1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6694667
No, but the general consensus among the people that actually consume fine art is that artists should be free to offer critiques of society that may, in fact, make people angry, uncomfortable, and confused. This is opposed to most other professions, which for various societal reasons cannot do so.
This is also the function that fascists and communists both vehemently oppose, using the exact same arguments as you do. Of course, the real reason isn't to provide beautiful art for the people - even Soviet Realism remained a highly exclusive niche for rich people - but to silence dissent and stop art from being a vehicle for criticism of the regime.
This is also an issue even independently from abstraction or abstract expressivism in art. Picture related also offers social critique and was passionately polarizing at the 1819 paris salon. Abstract and modern art just has a higher concentration of people willing to critique society, and as such makes for an easy target to attack in order to send a message to artists to stop opposing the status quo.

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 13:57:11 2023 No.6699014
File: 50 KB, 564x161, Screenshot 2023-06-13 at 16-53-49 340245.pdf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6698128
Abstract Expressionist paintings that are explicitly about nothing as a subject matter are expensive not because of any meaning in them, but because they're sufficiently aesthetic, portray an aura of being cultured, and do NOT have a meaning that might be considered offensive, or might conflict with your company ethos/image. Evoking as little emotions or thoughts as possible is the actual goal.

Anonymous Tue Jun 13 20:19:40 2023 No.6699333

>>6675908
>>6676244
>>6677022
>>6685782
>money laundering
>>6675551
>>6676595
>>6681505
>bourgeois
It's neither, you plebs. It's the cultural elite influencing the art market through institutions, either through government-funded ones (museums, public art, etc) or ones partially owned by pension funds that subscribe to stakeholder, not shareholder capitalism - and demand similar commitments from the companies that manage their funds. The people pulling the strings are the highly-educated, but not financially very successful individuals.

The actual rich bourgeoisie fucks actually have way more traditional tastes. They don't buy Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin, they buy Lucian Freud or Frank Auerbach. Bourgs want something that belongs to the long tradition of visual art and works as a part of it. The cultural elite wants something that sets itself apart from it.

So who is funding this art, and for what purpose? You are, through the taxes you pay. The government and government-funded institutions are the prime buyers of conceptual and avant-garde art. They make up well more than half of the market. In some countries, they make up almost the entire market.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 20:20:20 2023 No.6699334 File: 207 KB, 586x839, Screenshot 2023-06-13 at 23-07-19 340245.pdf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6699333 Forgot the picture

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 13 20:47:29 2023 No.6699366 i like Jackson Pollock purely for the fact that he can actually elicit an emotional reaction out of people purely through cum stains on canvas. i think that in it of it self is profound

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 14 21:28:02 2023 No.6700685 >>6699334 What book is this from, anon?

Anonymous Thu Jun 15 00:47:19 2023 No.6700950
File: 186 KB, 566x594, art monopolies more likely than you think.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6700685
>Hans Abbing: Why are Artists so Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts, Amsterdam University Press, 2002
It's a bit academic, but not too dense of a read. Written by someone that worked as both an economist and an artist. Helped me understand the art world better.
It's almost certainly slightly out-of-date by now - currently governments and companies want to signal more with art that deals with political/social themes than they did at the time of it's writing. The major trends and institutions it talks about still persist, as well as the reasons for why artists are poor - and probably will continue to be.
I'd give it a solid 8/10

Anonymous Thu Jun 15 04:42:21 2023 No.6701260
File: 42 KB, 440x553, Sassoferrato_-_Jungfrun_i_bon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

My take is that art needs context. But very basic and broad one.
If you want it to have deeper meaning, the piece should give you the context to understan that meaning.
Even if you never heard of praying, the resting pose still shows you calmness and reflection
Going like "This is the piece, but to understand it you gotta go look somewhere else" is comic book non-canon faggotry

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 15 16:11:47 2023 No.6701868 >>6675544 Lol @ plebs getting filtered by the unfathomably based de Kooning.

Anonymous Thu Jun 15 16:19:18 2023 No.6701882

>>6699366
Not Pollock btw.
>>6675551
Clearly not Rothko, but you probably know that.
>>6675585
>>6675577
Nice blog post. Slurping the cock of modernism by definition makes you a postmodernist, by the way.

Anyway, OPs pic is Willem De Kooning during his black phase. Funny how this thread threw around Pollock's name so much, considering that de Kooning was essentially his mentor. One time Pollock showed up to the de Kooning's catskills retread and Elaine greeted him at the front door with a pint glass full of vodka and handed it to him. Pollock turned and left.
ITT: Lots of strong opinions on abstract expressionism by pseuds who apparently don't know anything about it, seeing as de Kooning was basically the father of it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 16 00:35:05 2023 No.6702449 >>6675544 its not art.

Anonymous Fri Jun 16 04:15:07 2023 No.6702649

>>6675544
because they cant into "vibes" which is fundamentally (albeit reductively) the entire point of abstract expressionism. Also its funny how people's political identity is wrapped up in this debate.

>>6675585
>And all art has been "abstract"
explain realism then

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 16 04:18:09 2023 No.6702654 >>6683297 dadaism never died

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 16 07:02:59 2023 No.6702797 >>6701882 >you have to know banal trivia about these alcoholic fuckheads before you can criticize them

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 16 08:48:48 2023 No.6702883 Well, intelligent people don't hate it. We just don't give a fuck about it. If it manages to get any substantial reaction from you (negative or otherwise) - you are not very smart. /thread

Anonymous Fri Jun 16 08:58:36 2023 No.6702892
File: 2.95 MB, 1024x1654, the_welcoming_committee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6702649
>explain realism then
Not the other person. Realism uses abstract elements of design to create an illusion of looking out on a 3-dimensional scene through the picture frame, but the resulting image is always abstracted away from reality because it's a static, almost completely flat surface.

Anonymous Fri Jun 16 11:24:54 2023 No.6702966

>>6675544
>Culture critic
>No history or art course.
>Link to crypto and self-improvement course
Good morning! sirs!
>>6675548
Sadly people, including some pro artists only look at the money laundering part and dismiss abstract art.
They can be inspirations for other illustrations. Texture, color theory, brush stroke... and Asian apply it in their popular arts better than Westerners. They can be seen as brush packs of traditional art.
Beside express their feeling, some artists make abstract arts as a sample and apply them in their other pieces.
Some artists didn't make abstract art to sell it but for themselves and share amongst their peers. The one who exploit them for money laundering are the elites.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 16 12:22:16 2023 No.6702986 File: 1.12 MB, 684x2020, modern-art-2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jun 16 12:25:54 2023 No.6702988

>>6702966
Yes, but calling it "abstract art" instead of "color/texture sample/study" is a tad dishonest. Of course it's interesting to sample a few colors, see if you can find some harmonious combination and stuff. But that's a throwaway doodle, not a piece of art.

Things at the edge between realism and abstract are far more interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEeWcP4H21Q

Selling/buying it for millions is obviously flawed. The marketing is ridiculous "omygad it's sooo responding to whatnot's 3 lines on a dot, a complete reactionary take on the elevation of the struggle of the water" and only works because some people's ego gets flattered
> we're in the know

>>	Anonymous Fri Jun 16 22:31:07 2023 No.6703597 >>6702892 abstraction of physical form is not the same as abstraction of concept and expression you pedantic little shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 17 07:25:40 2023 No.6704137 >>6681290 LOL

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 17 11:34:39 2023 No.6704279 >>6676679 what was this supposed to be before someone dropped it

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 17 14:59:33 2023 No.6704440 >>6675544 Because its a bunch of trash meant for subversion, pretentiousness, and money laundering

Anonymous Sat Jun 17 19:30:20 2023 No.6704741

>>6686004
>>6686004
God damn I wanna fuck that inu so bad. >>6675548
anyways the whole "abstract art is what you personally interpret it as" or the "You need to know about the artist" arguments are kind of bunk because the same can be said for a lot of normal art really

Anonymous Sun Jun 18 12:56:20 2023 No.6705610

>>6675551
>>6675544
it's disingenuous, real art should be honest and up front in what it's trying to express. same goes for the eternal cop out of " it's up to the audience to decide what it means" kind of shit. it's ridiculous. that's why this sort of shit isn't truly art but rather a mean spirited and pretentious skill-less commentary about people they think they are above.

Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:05:47 2023 No.6705616

>>6681351
>>6681294
>Doesn't change the fact that I've been emotionnally moved
art isn't about the audience, that's what midwits just can't seem to grasp. it's about the sole artist's skillful intentional expression and how well he can come close to displaying it. you were moved because you were conditioned into thinking it was the right response, like a fool. it's just like the Milgram experiments on obedience to authority figures, where a situation is framed in a certain way and the subject mindlessly reacts the way that the artificial situation calls for him to react.
it's like someone telling you a watch of theirs is worth 900,000 dollars or something and hands it to you. you'd feel nervous and you would try not to drop it.
if he told you it was a 7 dollar casio you probably wouldn't care much and toss it over back to him.
when you get older you'll realize that they try to keep the definition of art muddy and flexible because it makes financial scams that much easier to pull off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:13:11 2023 No.6705621 File: 96 KB, 578x295, heh.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6705610 You've got no idea mate.

Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:14:38 2023 No.6705622
File: 178 KB, 593x564, nyehehe.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6705621
Art is used as a form of display of sublimated power and non-military competition. Non-representative art that shows vague meanings while maintaining high status is the most useful vehicle for this. Pompous painting of some modern politician showing their sword into some other country's politician or whatever would get laughed outside the international sphere.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:15:17 2023 No.6705623 >>6705622 >>6705621 you're just describing what it's used for, not what it is.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:16:53 2023 No.6705626 >>6705623 Form follows function

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:18:56 2023 No.6705627 >>6705626 you are absolutely retarded or pretending to be, and those excerpts look like some schizo ramblings that don't make sense. speaking in hyperbolic absolutes about the reasons art is created. almost bafflingly childlike logic.

Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:23:46 2023 No.6705631

>>6705627
Ah, I just triggered the chud that wants to continue living in the past and understands neither economy nor modern forms of governance. So scary! What ever will he do!
Governments are powerful. They have cultural power. They control the gatekeepers in the art world. They *decide* what qualifies as fine art, and they *will* decide based on their best interests.
The artists will conform to these ideas, go into commercial art, or become literal bottom-feeders of society making below minimum wage. The governments' needs are not served by representative art anymore, so that is no longer fine art. Simple as.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 18 13:24:29 2023 No.6705632 >>6705631 not going to humor your schizophrenia, please take some meds and have a good day. so long.

Anonymous Sun Jun 18 15:02:54 2023 No.6705710

>>6705631
>Governments are powerful
No. They are schizophrenic entities: the sum of various groups each defending their own selfish interests at all costs. Said groups being themselves likewise schizophrenic.

Modern governments are exceptionally weak, they'll break at the first major issue, because they're composed of people who have absolutely have no clue in how to govern a country.

Most people tend to conceptually group all those entities under a "they". That's a convenient and easy to understand simplification, but it's really, really wrong.

Some tendencies can and have been set. That doesn't prevent say, the Louvre to be the most visited museum in the world: this is a free market, most people don't give a crap about modern bullshit, and they do like beautiful stuff.

And obviously, most of them have no intentions to pay 2000€ for a few bananas studied in oil, who the hell wants that.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 15:50:21 2023 No.6706921

>>6699333
>The actual rich bourgeoisie fucks actually have way more traditional tastes. They don't buy Damien Hirst or Tracey Emin
Yes they do. Maybe not in their old money mansion but in their other homes sure. You are right about how institutions are used to inflate the value of these works. But surprise those institutions work at the behest of bourgeoisie fucks, who also buy this shit because it's a great investment and way to flex status.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 16:03:45 2023 No.6706928

>>6706921
Not him but see >>6705710.

"Rich bourgeoisie" is not some uniform entity. It's a complex mix of people with random background. Some won't, some will.

I don't think it's possible to have definite, accurate statistics for the average taste of any class of society, to see for instance if there's a 80% majority.

But yeah, we can fight tooth and nails about things we have no mean to really know anything about too...

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 16:10:26 2023 No.6706935
File: 110 KB, 680x454, AF1QipNF0mL6SpiAg0AlwJWJMm6xstH7ch7H1GX8mUAl=s680-w680-h510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6706928
>Some won't, some will.
Most do. It's a flatly untrue statement to say modern art isn't popular with the rich. They love it.
Look up any mansion tour of a 100+ million home. What sort of art do you see? Look up what hangs in the most expensive restaurant. What sort of art do you see? Look at the galas they throw, the festivals they go to. Look at the packaging of the products made to appeal to their exclusive market. It's rarely anything except modern art, and none of this the government's decree.
>>6706928
>But yeah, we can fight tooth and nails about things we have no mean to really know anything about too...
Speak for yourself.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 17:07:57 2023 No.6707007

>>6706935
>Most do. It's a flatly untrue statement to say modern art isn't popular with the rich
That's the common impression, it doesn't mean it's true, and the reality is, there's no faithful data we can trust. Now again, you can based your thinking on this impression, but that's some shaky ground, whether you like it or not. You might be true, you might not be.

Furthermore, the world is (much) greater than the West. The taste in East or in the Middle-East might be different. For once, strong religious influence in the latter provides some defense to wokeism there.

>Speak for yourself.
> MOMMY THE INTERNET IS NOT KIND WIIIIITHHH MEEEEEE IT SAYS THINGS I DON'T WAAAANAA HEAR!! :(((((
Grow the hell up.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 18:05:06 2023 No.6707081
File: 50 KB, 800x600, White-Cube-Art-Gallery.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6707007
>Grow the hell up.
I'm speaking from firsthand experience in my industry. Whereas you refused to address the points I made in order to pretend obvious reality is unknownable (it isn't) and throw an insult at me.
The rich buy modern art, they wear it, talk about it, places that cater to them display it, they sponsor it, it's in their homes. It's not some unknowable secret mystery, or some insane coincidence that a popular thing is popular. It is the prevailing culture.
>Now again, you can based your thinking on this impression, but that's some shaky ground, whether you like it or not. You might be true, you might not be.
You have zero justification for your inane pet theory so you're retreating into solipsism. Get real.
>Furthermore, the world is (much) greater than the West.
You are seriously just talking out of your ass now. Modern art is global. It is the vernacular of the contemporary fine art.
Try educating yourself before telling other's what they do and don't know.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 18:12:14 2023 No.6707094
File: 242 KB, 800x853, sothebys-md.brightspotcdn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6706921
>>6706935
>Most do. It's a flatly untrue statement to say modern art isn't popular with the rich.
The conceptual / avant-garde / "cutting-edge" art space and contemporary are entirely different spheres. You don't even know who Emin, Hirst, Auerbach, or Freud are, or what their famous works are. Picture related is an Auerbach painting. You're just incapable of differentiating between it and Emin's unmade bed.
>Look up any mansion tour of a 100+ million home
Only nouveau-rich and wnb-celebs are stupid enough to let someone tour their home. In fact, the smart ones in either camp also avoid it.
>Look up what hangs in the most expensive restaurant.
Like what, Schloss Schauenstein, Le Pré Catelan, Le Meurice, Masa, Restaurant de l'Hôtel de Ville, Guy Savoy, Kitcho Arashiyama Honten? All are fairly traditional. Literally the most expensive restaurant is Bacchanalia, and its theming is not even merely classical, it's decidedly Greco-Roman.
Worth noting that all of them are also frequented by people way too poor to actually buy an Auerbach original painting - usually relatively rich cultural elite - not the people with deep pockets enough to actually take part at a Christie's or Sotherby's auction. Fine art is not the game of the top 1%, or even top 0.1% - it's more like 0.01% where your annual income of ~€12million allows you to throw out a few mil for a piece of top grade fine art.
You haven't even *seen* a product targeting this market in-person, and it's abundantly clear.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 18:47:46 2023 No.6707143

>>6675544
Because they foolishly think they can do it just as well. The currency in art among normies is how detailed or rendered something looks, its the only reason why hyperrealist still survive monetarily today. The more you can draw realism from imagination the more your art is supposedly worth.

If something seems easy then it has no worth and they're angry that people give it worth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 19 19:46:09 2023 No.6707217 >>6707081 So much anger, so much projection, so little self-control. > But yeah, we can fight tooth and nails about things we have no mean to really know anything about too... Was I right. I let you fight alone

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 19 21:16:09 2023 No.6707354 >>6685356 the punchline of the joke: all of them are, because you cant tell whats happening

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 22:13:32 2023 No.6707426

>>6707081
I'm >>6707217; just stumbled upon LA Art Show 2023 walk-through: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV60suISgRo

I'm 20min "watching" while drawing. Look at the amount of realistic work. And watch for the Asian names. Not sure if it'll generalize to 3h30, but still.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 22:53:14 2023 No.6707469

>>6686055
>is far more daunting than
Who are you to say what is more "dauting" than something else?
>There's nothing daring about retreating into the cloister of art intelligentsia who divorce themselves from anyone's opinion but their own, and purposefully make their work opaque to keep it that way.
Thats just your opinion, man. these intelligentsia are expanding the meaning of art and pushing it to its absolute possible limits. they are behind freedom in art. you can absolutely do what they are doing but today you can also do whatever the fuck you want, chasing perfect form or "a defined statement of the human condition"or whatever. people like pollock were making art for arts sake, not to impress anyone with technical mastery or making a big social statement, he just wanted to expand art to its limits and he achieve it.
>You think Pollock had balls because he's the one who was chosen to be famous
He was chosen in the west like socialist realism was chosen in the ussr, why would that tarnish his legacy when he was clearly doing something to gather atention?
>"Doing the same old shit" are you retarded? Objective representation has gone through endless change over thousands of years of recorded human history.
Why are you angry at me? You said it yourself that we are doing "objective representation" for thousands of years, it was western artists that abandoned it after being tired of it. if you want the most objective representation just take a photo lol. you can still chase for it, nobody is stopping you, but artists want to do other things and everyone is free to do whatever they want
> where people copy Pollock, Rothko, Malevich, etc. almost IDENTICALLY while pretending to break new ground
and they arent remembered like almost every artist of the past inst.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 23:16:41 2023 No.6707497

>>6707469
>and they arent remembered like almost every artist of the past inst.
Not him, but wait a few more decades/centuries before saying that Pollock & cie are remembered.

Desu, Pollock is already a nobody in the mind of a large majority of people.

Honestly, assuming you're not baiting, I can't understand how people could think of almost anything that's been produced in the last few decades as having any potential to last for centuries. Society has been going downhill fast, and will either have to crash or drastically change course. Both issues will demand a firm cultural shift.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 19 23:19:08 2023 No.6707500 >>6707354 Bragging about your ignorance isn't really a flex. Being able to tell counterfeit artworks is not magic.

Anonymous Mon Jun 19 23:44:40 2023 No.6707518

>>6707497
>Not him, but wait a few more decades/centuries before saying that Pollock & cie are remembered.
Remembered by whom? he will definetly be remembered in academia for ages to come
>Desu, Pollock is already a nobody in the mind of a large majority of people.
And? The large majority of people are nigger cattle. who are artists that the majority of people remember today? da vinci and picasso? i already had this discussion above.
>I can't understand how people could think of almost anything that's been produced in the last few decades as having any potential to last for centuries.
as a subject of art history, of course.
>Society has been going downhill fast, and will either have to crash or drastically change course
Ok chud.
>Both issues will demand a firm cultural shift.
it doesnt matter if the west will fall or whatever, take greek and roman statues for example, or medieval art, african art, etc. all art made in lost and fallen societies recovered by some artist in their own time.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jun 19 23:56:47 2023 No.6707525 >>6704279 to me it looks like Duchamp was trying to use the cracks of the glass as perspective lines which is pretty crazy amazing imo desu

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 20 00:01:10 2023 No.6707529 if everything is art and im good at art im good at everything

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 20 03:16:31 2023 No.6707731 >>6676451 >>6681011 I am a zoomer in art school and I still had multiple realism/life drawing courses, which a lot of classmates (even some that weren't training to be painters) were great at

Anonymous Tue Jun 20 03:21:04 2023 No.6707735

>>6683297
It's weird that nobody knows that the name of the piece is "The Comedian". It's designed to be a joke. If you think it's stupid it's working.
>>6698495
This anon is making fun of it but he's right, the meaning of it is created by people's reactions to it. I'm sure the artist is delighted that it's now so famous that it's the go-to shorthand for banal modern art

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 20 03:22:58 2023 No.6707736 >>6698495 Most provocative performance art of the century.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 20 03:35:36 2023 No.6707743 File: 7 KB, 183x275, qustion fraulein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6685356 It's the top one, right?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 20 04:54:07 2023 No.6707821 >>6707518 You're unbelievably close-minded and absolute, it's painful to interact with such people. I hope you're at least baiting.

Anonymous Tue Jun 20 14:37:46 2023 No.6708268

>>6685356
Deceptive argument. Let's assume someone who has not done abstract expressionist art can't do it perfectly the first few times. Something can be "difficult" at the beginning but that doesn't mean that it's nearly the same level of difficulty as other art.
And asking which one is Pollok is completely unrelated to the previous statement and it also doesn't matter generally.

Anonymous Tue Jun 20 15:40:58 2023 No.6708307

There was a period where I was obsessed with getting the best possible composition in my sketches and paintings, but eventually it became clear that would just mean a simple portrait on a dark backdrop every time (maximizing contrast at key points to make the clearest message). Obviously any painter would want to do more than that, so composition is not the end-all but only a tool wholly in service of the goal.
There have always been two rules I've tried to follow: when you look at my paintings, you have to get the message, and it has to look good. Composition skill will help you get closer to both of these. Anyway a decent painting stands on its own; the artist works to make the message readable regardless of the difficulty. in abstract art, whether or not there is actually a message the creator makes no effort to make it clear, it's just masturbation. canvases covered in frantic paint splotches can't even stand alone as good compositions, because that is usually something that results from heavy thought if the painting contains any visual complexity at all (if you don't know what you're doing, the odds of it being readable drop exponentially as the complexity you're trying to represent rises). imagine a writer making a novel with random sequences of characters instead of words, with some pages blank in random spots. is there a message? does he want to subconsciously share with me the trauma of his stepfather anally raping him at 5 years old, or was he just feeling cute? essentially these guys are just generating "noise" and people tie value to it because of who's doing it... "artists", who are known to be brooding and thoughtful. the most important thing you can realize is being smart sometimes does not make one immune to being retarded the rest of the time. this applies to every single person, and it's why you should be careful of worshipping any mortal man. they think every time he spills his inkwell he's thinking of anything more than eating a sandwich

Anonymous Tue Jun 20 15:49:17 2023 No.6708315

>>6708307
>canvases covered in frantic paint splotches can't even stand alone as good compositions
I despise abstract "modern" crap-art, but your statement is incorrect. Visual composition in essence is abstract: a working realistic composition is about finding balance between values/colors/shapes/texture, and this can be achieved on a purely abstract level too.

Already quoted but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEeWcP4H21Q

In >>6685356, the top one is less symmetric/regular than the two others;it's more balanced. But that's about all you can expect from that kind of work; just learn a few composition tricks, apply one with scribbles and you're done.

It deserves no praise whatsoever.

Anonymous Tue Jun 20 15:50:47 2023 No.6708316

>>6708268
>bro abstract painting is so easy a toddler could do it
>bro it only takes a few tries to get it right
>bro I could easily make the same art, just give me a few months to practice
>bro It just takes a few years of learning and studying and I could make the same painting
stop coping and admit it takes skill

Anonymous Tue Jun 20 16:16:19 2023 No.6708336

>>6708315
composition by itself is always abstract, that's why it has to be in service of a message. it's just creating contrast where you want focus to be drawn and minimizing it elsewhere.
if trees did not exist, a painting of a tree would still work all the same. only, rather than a tree we would see an otherworldly "structure". but it would still have readable form, it could exist in our physical reality.
the physics of light and matter themselves lend themselves to good visual composition, or I should say it's the other way around. it's because we exist with the senses to parse the physical world to the exact extent we need to.
in the end every painting may as well be abstract, because it's only brush strokes. but "abstract" artists insist on slapping paint and shapes down in a way that doesn't conform to any ruleset. you'll find that if a physical realm does not conform to any rules, it does not exist (the suggestion of such a world is just noise). it's an abdication of an artist's responsibility to produce something that looks good and reads well. the example you cited is a horrible composition... is there a place my focus needs to be concentrated? if there is, is there a point to it? whether there is or isn't, what am I actually supposed to glean from it? it is wasting my time. in communicating, humanity passes down useful information or sensations of great catharsis (useful info as well). these canvases are not useful. I'm watching somebody jerk off, and not in any amusing or interesting way. is it possible to look at such a painting and see something that improves your ability to do art? maybe, but only incidentally (you might find a color combination you didn't consider etc). this is the same as gleaning something from noise in the asphalt, which I guess might actually be worth something now that I think about it. "abstract" might be noise that somebody's brain can extract use out of. an artist's job is to convey meaning to intended recipients

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 20 16:20:40 2023 No.6708341 >>6708315 thank you for the video

Anonymous Tue Jun 20 16:24:06 2023 No.6708346

>>6708316
>bro, just trust me, it takes a few tries--no, a few years at least!--before someone can do it so it's just as valid as any art
>those toddlers who fooled the super learned academics? didn't happen!
Stop lying to yourself and admit relatively speaking, it takes far less skill, commitment, genius, talent, learning than a lot of art.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 21 22:29:06 2023 No.6710346 >>6708346 then why aren't you a famous abstract artist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 21 22:31:35 2023 No.6710352 >>6708316 Not skill but it does take reading a fuckton of theory, looking at other artists and playing around with paint to see what works and what doesn't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 21 22:35:36 2023 No.6710359 File: 324 KB, 2048x1370, DSC_8478.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6708316 it doesn't but skill doesn't correlate with quality

Anonymous Wed Jun 21 22:56:22 2023 No.6710397

>>6708336
>the example you cited is a horrible composition
It has a central focal point, a harmonious, despite limited, use of color that easily trigger a mood response. There's a temperature balance (sky is warmer). The pattern despite being abstract, reads as waves, but their bright white color pushes things to an iceberg-like feel.

It's not a fantastic piece, but it's interesting nevertheless, more than a Pollock desu.

>>6710346
Not him but luck factor. Plus the fact that people don't rationally judge things, especially art. The world would be a much better place were people being more rational. (Also I personally have no interest in being a "famous abstract artist" either)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 22 01:15:59 2023 No.6710534 File: 885 KB, 2048x2048, art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6699014 fed that line into Stable Diffusion and this rolled out

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 22 01:21:08 2023 No.6710537 File: 1.24 MB, 1024x1024, modern.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6710534

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 22 02:01:52 2023 No.6710587 >>6707821 nice argument

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 22 02:19:59 2023 No.6710609 >>6710587 There's no point in discussing with people like you, there are no argument that can be made. Pure loss of time and energy. I have much, much better things to do. Enjoy yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 22 06:02:37 2023 No.6710770 >>6675544 Because peak abstract art was Yoko Ono's 'Exhibit of the mind' bullshit where there where blank canvases only

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 24 09:19:58 2023 No.6713135 >>6675544 Because it relies more upon the interpretative capacity of the viewer than the creative ability of the artist

Anonymous Sun Jun 25 10:32:34 2023 No.6714313

>>6675544
I personally like abstract art, it looks pretty cool and you can tell the strokes within it actually require skill. Abstract art is pretty neat, but I wouldn't put it above fine art. The pricing for them is also in the money laundering territory.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 25 10:52:43 2023 No.6714318 >>6714313 what is fine arts? and why isnt abstract art not fine art

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 27 07:48:43 2023 No.6716536 >>6684775 Cope

>>	Anonymous Tue Jun 27 08:33:54 2023 No.6716563 >>6689015 I kneel

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 28 18:47:03 2023 No.6718155 >>6675544 Pic related looks like one of those overly sauced pizzas that you'd get at pizza hut or something

Anonymous Wed Jun 28 18:49:15 2023 No.6718157

>>6710359
God, this stuff is in a way even worse than the pointless canvases with random splotches or a single dot of paint. What is the point of this? Seriously, what is the fucking point?! People all around the world used to throw away shit photos for being blurry, but this person does it intentionally and now museumgoers are supposed to go "oh wow, how deep?" What a load of crock.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 28 19:20:22 2023 No.6718191 >>6718157 r u retard? xD don evn kno the baxtory (u r RONG!!) >~< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehching_Hsieh

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 28 19:57:58 2023 No.6718226 >>6714318 Abstract art is, for the overwhelming majority of it, not fine.

Anonymous Wed Jun 28 19:58:37 2023 No.6718227

>>6718191
>Tehching Hsieh 1986–1999 (Thirteen Year Plan)Edit

>At the beginning of this epic piece, Hsieh declared, "Will make Art during this time. Will not show it publicly." This plan began on his 36th birthday, 31 December 1986, and lasted until his 49th birthday, 31 December 1999.

>At the end, on 1 January 2000 he issued his concluding report, "I kept myself alive. I passed the December 31st, 1999." The report consisted of cutout letters pasted onto a single sheet of paper.

It's worse than I feared. He doesn't just do shit modern art, he does shit performance modern art.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 28 23:37:27 2023 No.6718449 >>6718227 > He has been called a "master" by fellow performance artist Marina Abramović. THOU SHALL SHOW RESTECP TO EL MAESTRO

Anonymous Thu Jun 29 08:09:49 2023 No.6718895

>museums (NGO or Gov Org) and Govs have the money
>cianigger sniffs
>make low-barrier entry artwork (abstrac trash) since it's high-barrier elitist
>astroturf modern abstract art as if it's the next coming
>further spread influence over academe with your glownigger buddies to the point you anons probably have learned about abstract artshits in bachelors degree or even high school and asked to make an essay about how abstract art is beautiful (brainwashing101 by forcing people to agree the premise, but also put these into curriculum like prom garbage and disect-a-frog for no reason ~ also glownigger stuff)
>eventually the glows sell out their art trash from their art buddies
>eventually use it to launder money between organizations
>???
>profit
it's just a scam over all. not to mention the "nft" tier scams like they make it seem valuable, then there's also nepotism in museum staff so their crew can bank in millions off museum or government funds and then there's clever ones like >>6694447 who ride the updrafts caused by this turmoil dare I say based? it's like selling NFTs for a google drive (non perma link) to trust-fund retards on twitter

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 29 10:34:19 2023 No.6718975 wait until you find out about the defaced statues

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 29 12:29:46 2023 No.6719074 >>6700950 Late response but thanks, anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 29 12:36:11 2023 No.6719082 >>6675544 Hating art is moronic and meaningless, hating those who project their own thoughts onto someone else's art is based.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/ic/ - Artwork/Critique