/lit/ - Literature

>>4305574
"At a certain moment the canvas began to appear to one American painter after another as an arena in which to act. What was to go on the canvas was not a picture but an event." - some guy.

This is in the case of painting like Pollock did. It might look like random stuff. But there is still meaning. It means something to the artist and to many who enjoy it.

In another case of abstract art, pic related, I think the pattern is clearer. I personally just like this painting when put in context with its title. "Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue".

I'm glad that the culinary world hasn't jumped on the modernism band wagon. If they had, you could spend a hundred dollars on a boiled hotdog because the chef wanted to make an ironic statement about class consciousness. Some witty asshole would start plating Lunchables and serving them as "pop cuisine".

Seriously, when is the madness going to stop? In what world does Hans Hoffman compare to Caspar David Friedrich? In what world is the work of Charles Bukowski more appealing than the work of Alfred Lord Tennyson?

Art should not be about the masturbatory statements of the artist. A sense of aesthetics exists for a reason. I can not believe that the amateurish offerings of a modernist appeal to anybody for any reason other than self aggrandizement and the gleeful disdain of those with "less refined" tastes.

Modernists are selfish and egotistical.

>>496470

>Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue?, 1966, by Barnett Newman. Oil on canvas

Yeah, but come on...