/lit/ - Literature

>>10051746
>Any books that will answer this for me?
Read the Bible and The Culture of Critique by Sir Kevin MacDonald and you'll understand

watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s

>>10051746
Jacques Barzun - The Use and Abuses of Art

I highly highly recommend this, its very short but explains a lot.

It isnt even a right-wing diatribe really, I don't think it ever explicitly mentions political motivations but it presents a very compelling argument for why modern art evolved and "degenerated" the way it did

here is a quick video explaining it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

Modern art rules.

Realistfags eat shit.

>>10051782
holy shit, he's right about everything... I don't think this can be refuted!

because humanity is shit at the moment

>modern art is postmodern

Wouldn't it just be postmodern art then?

>>10051782
this video is so fucking painful to watch
pragerU is truly the buzzfeed of the right
also
>2 million views
we're fucking doomed

catpcha: burns school

if you want to stop coming off like a ridiculous farmer why don't you try watching this series instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg

>>10051828
not an argument, pinko

>>10051829
>Praising classical art over modern art is being "a ridiculous farmer"

A very peculiar attempt at poisoning the well, CTR.

>>10051829
Was just about to recommend this.

>>10051832
What would a modern day classical painter even paint? What would it even reflect? A tradition way out of touch with the real. The world is different place now.

I really don't understand why /pol/ hates modern art so much. I get that it's not for everyone but I don't understand the total frothing indignation that aren't you don't like exists.

>>10051840
>It's a /pol/ boogeyman post.
embryo tier post

>>10051843
Hi /pol/

>>10051840
I think that most of modern art is shit because it's not so specific or profound but there are good images. Like the one you have there is technically good but visually meaningless and easily duplicated by others in theory of randomness

>>10051840
>modern art is universally recognized as shit among non contrarians
>this is somehow /pol/s fault
fuck off back to r/books

if /pol/ were smart they would realize modern art was part of the fascist movement, but then again they're /pol/ so...

>>10051866
>>10051840
>I am so mad that people don't like scribblings on a canvas I am going to blame /pol/ and make multiple posts endlessly bitching
cuck

>>10051829
>picabia was neither, he had a flair for the ol' in-out, mechanical sex, mechanical self

lol hughes had sick bants

>>10051831
eh, there isn't much to argue
the video makes a lot of retarded jumps from very different art periods and vulgarly lumps them in this nonsense super category "the great masters of the past". You can see this in the way he uses the term "classical art" very very broadly.
It's basically a video aimed at american normies who never received any art education, it serves to validate their anti-intellectualism and their preconcept of good craftsmanship being the only important thing there is in art (notice how he carefully avoids mentioning van gogh). it's the equivalent of goodreads reviews that categorize Ulysses as being "just intellectual masturbation", or of normies listening to the moonlight sonata and a bunch of other super famous music pieces and feeling that they have the right to give their pleb opinions about rumorism or minimalism
with that being said, i hate the feminist period blood ""art"" just as much as you do

>>10051858
I think it's meaningful. It seems evocative of the swamp and subsequently the total abundance of life and head within a swamp. But when turned upside down being evocative of snowy mountains and subsequently the total cold barren wastes of a snowy mountain. It seems to contrast natural imagery in that way.
>>10051859
It's not though. It seems to only be really hated by butthurt-brigades that roam the internet looking for things to be indignant about, like /pol/. I never see people who like modern art roaming around shouting about how great modern art is on every board, but I do see anti-modern artfags doing this all the time. Anti-modern artfags are like the vegans of art.

>>10051746
The Jews control it and use it as a never ending inside joke that only Jewish kids will ever understand who went to Jewish camp and Jewish Sunday school.

I have literally never met someone intelligent who hated modern art. It's not that appreciators of modern art are wine sniffing phonies. They are just literally more patrician than you and you have to strawman them to feel good about having retarded eyes that only understand mimesis

>>10051906
>eyes that only understand mimesis
this
my favourite painter is Caravaggio and whenever i ask someone if they like him they all respond with "uh obviously bro he's good at painting bro like he's REALISTIC bro muh craftsmanship bro"

>>10051906
I doubt you have much life experience or would be able to recognize an intelligent person though

>>10051935
I doubt you understand how sad it is to think liking classic things is something noteworthy

>>10051943
I doubt I care.

CIA psyop. Not even kidding.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

>>10051950
That goes without saying

>>10051888
Was waiting for the correct answer.

>>10051782
>Believing anything PragerU has to say

You may also join to a neo-nazi cult

>>10051953
Please, not this meme again. According to 4chan, modern art is postmodern jewish communist CIA anti-communist money laundering. I'm not making this up, this is literally what people have said about it here.

>>10051746
Deskilling. It's a fucking disease. In cultural production today (Art, Design, Music etc..) the receiving public is fully willing to accept the deskilled object without question. People today make no attempt to see artistic production as a discipline (in the fullest form of it's meaning), rather artistic production becomes a game where by any criteria (or principle) applied to a work to critically assess it (determine to what degree it is "good") is dismissed as not essential to the work. Thank you, Duchamp.

As a result people are making straight up garbage and try to pretend it's conceptual, because they have no skill and no discipline. They hide behind the notion that skill, technique, discipline and craft are passe and somehow unconceptual. Most art is produced in a critical vacuum, an environment free of criticism - your fellow artists don't know shit and wouldn't want to offend you anyway. Not only that, 99% of criticism in magazines/internet/literature is purely masturbatory, artists are marketed as saints. Real criticism is key to art, without calling a work into crisis art can't move forward. The response to criticism should be defensive, but not in words - defensive in action. Defensive by making another, greater work. This is why art is stagnant.

>>10051746

postmodernism ended after the 70s

I'm not sure why /lit/ seems to think that everything after the 20th century is postmodernism

and there is plenty of good modern art, just like there was plenty of bad old art

I would list some but it's pointless because you guys will just shit on it even though I doubt you've read it

>>10051883
>american normies who never received any art education

shut the fuck up eurocuck

>>10051953
Indeed, Pollock and Rothko were creating in a vacuum and there's absolutely no precedent to them in any works of Picasso, Matisse or Miro, none at all (i suppose Peggy Guggenheim was CIA psyop as well and the movements in France reacting to abstract expressionism too).

Also nice fucking thread in which yet again modernist, postmodernist and contemporary are terms commingled into one great boogeyman, with a PragerU video (with such irrefutable gems in it as THE STANDARDS CHART) on top. Really haven't seen that one for some time.

>>10052222
>shut the fuck up eurocuck
no u

>>10051829
good lad

>>10051840
your post is shit but that artwork looks like it would be fitting for a cover of heart of darkness, kinda cool

>>10052222
What weird ranking is this? Almost all rankings put Cambridge at number one, even if America generally dominates.

it could be some kinda jewish conspiracy to destroy western civilization, or it may have something to do with photo realism being obsolete in the age of photography

by the way, the CIA did fund abstract art, that's well documented and not some kinda "lol tinfoil hat" delusion.

they didn't do it to "subvert ARE CULTURE" but to financially incentivize artists to move away from politically charged work. the same thing is done today in asia and latin america.

>>10051836
Love how none of these crypto storm plebs have no answer for this.

>>10051746
Stop being so afraid of things you don't understand and everything will be a lot easier for you.

Some of it is good, some of it is bad. Most of the stuff that's been posted in this thread is 10/10.

The real problem I have with modern art is the works that try and make a "statement". Not an issue in itself, but they try so hard to be controversial but don't go all the way, making the whole thing a toothless tiger. I'm talking about the picture of Jesus immersed in urine, etc. It's like the adult version of the "LOL so edgy xD" shit that teenage kids do.

I enjoy realism in paintings and sculpture, and I'm a bit sad that the realist tradition has fallen by the wayside, because I really don't think photography captures the same essence. I understand why it's no longer as popular, and a lot of modern art is really, really good, but I also wish we could have a token amount of new realist works during exhibitions.

This is all coming from what /lit/ would call a poltard, by the way.

>>10052280
They would paint what they always painted. God is eternal, unchanging, harmonious. Art made in His grace similarly touches the infinite and thus stands the test of time.

>>10052269
>Almost all rankings put Cambridge at number one

bwahaha is that the kind of shit they feed plebs in the uk? cambridge maybe top 5, also mad respect to that list for putting gay ass yale so low, fuck yale

>>10052315
dumb burger
>also mad respect to that list for putting gay ass yale so low, fuck yale
well at least we agree on something

>>10052300
>This is all coming from what /lit/ would call a poltard, by the way.

That much was obvious from the first sentence. Even regardless of content, your way of writing gives your self assured pseudo-intellectualism away.

>>10052270
>they didn't do it to "subvert ARE CULTURE" but to financially incentivize artists to move away from politically charged work. the same thing is done today in asia and latin america.
nah, it was more of an attempt to promote American art as progressive and innovative, opposing the traditionalism and figurative nature of communist art to sway European intellectuals to turn on Russia, not that the artists themselves had anything to do with it, it was just heavily promoted through touring exhibitions and critical praise. Abstract Expressionism isn't inherently bad just because it was insidiously promoted but I feel it did influence modern perceptions of art for the worse.
Some of it is alright.

>>10052309
if you don't like the stuff jews and sheiks are buying, the vatican is free to open up their wallet and commission some "classical art" any time, michaelangelo didn't work for free homie, he need fat ducat stacks and good boipucci to get the creative juices flowing

>>10051746
It's not, you're just obsessive.

>>10051746
I don't know

>>10052597
>idk

is this a raid or did some autistic mother fucker figure out how to pass the google captchas using an image processing and deep learning, there used to be a mother fucker on /mu/ who could pass the captchas and had bots that would spam gore, but i think he was just taking the audio captcha and then using a signal processing library to convert it to text

>>10052270
>They didn't do it to subvert culture, but to [description of subverting the culture of art in Europe]

O..k?

>>10052604
>is this a raid
I dont fucking know kiddo

Why do people always pretend that Contemporary Art is inherently marxist? The vast majority of painters, composers and conceptual artists were apolitical individualists, with only extremely small fringes of Marxist artists.
Not a single Marxist painting has been posted on this thread.

>>10052637
/pol/ gotta /pol/

>>10052637
>Why do people always pretend that Contemporary Art is inherently marxist?
Because they are illiterate dumbasses who probably migrated from /pol/, after migrating from maga-plebbit

>>10052208
This
t. Art school drop out

>>10052604
>just taking the audio captcha and then using a signal processing library to convert it to text
crafty

>>10051746
I DI NOTO KNOWe

>>10051927
Their reasons are as valid as yours. There's no one way to appreciate art. I might think art is only good if it's in the service of God, you might prefer self expression, others prefer craftsmanship. This world surely is wide enough to hold both thee and me

>>10051746
Carl Jung "Man and His Symbols" literally addresses this in, I believe, Part 4. In butchered regurgitation, the absence of any absolute truth or morality in place of subjective everything caused many artists to reduce their art almost completely to basic the basic "form" of matter, probably because/since in the reduction of anything socially constructed as an absolute, only matter remains as anything that is still absolute.

>>10051746
I don't know

>>10052686
Oh it also established that the transition from realism to pure form makes sense in a way because photography took over as the artistic representation of realism, for obvious reasons.

Even if you don't want to read the whole book, I think that part is only about 70 pages. You could read it today instead of shitposting.

>>10052597
>>10052679
>>10052690

what did this autist mean by this

>>10051782
PragerU is the opposite side of the kosher sandwich

>>10051746
>why modern art is a bunch of postmodern
how fucking broken is your brain?

modern art by rr brettell

>>10051974
>neo-nazi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76NytvQAIs0
huh...

>modern art is a bunch postmodern Marxist bullshit

given that this almost definitely a shitpost, i wont say more than this: art is a lot easier to understand if you know a little bit about the time it created in (the terms, images and concerns of an age are all related)

>>10052604
i remember that guy. he broke /mu/

i want my sharethreads back

>>10052754
holy jesus i need to go to bed

*bunch of
*this is
*it was

>>10051840
its because people are so deracinated and atomized that they can no longer connect to most art.

its why brutalism gets such a bad wrap. the overt utilitarianism destroys any ability to attach emotion.

average people saying modern art is shit is reactionary as they watch their country die and become overwhelmed by other populations. art overwhelming seems to espouse rich urbanite interest and struggles. I think that without strong mutual culture its hard to create that kind of awesome, grandoise art from classicsl eras.

>>10052754
why would I want to understand leftist moral relativist egocentric deskilled decadent dehumanizing derivative deceitful deictic despiteful desensitizing garbage?

>>10052776
>average people saying modern art is shit is reactionary as they watch their country die and become overwhelmed by other populations.

This makes no sense: mass immigration has been an problem for Europe for 10 years, while contemporary art has dominated the intelligentsia for almost 100 years now.
If one wanted to find links in the rise of high culture, the fast industrialization of the 20th century and the globalization that stemmed from it would the the 2 big ones. Certainly not muslim refugees arriving en masse in Europe starting from 2005.
The problem is internal, inherent to our culture: no one but the Art industry is attacking our concept of high Art.

>>10051866
futurism is cool but schools always brush over it because muh fascism.

say what you will about the tenets of italian fascism but at least they had an ethos

>>10052794
to not come across as a pompous asshole who doesn't even know what he's talking about, for starters

>>10052826
>futurism is cool
>cool

Your unsophisticated language lays bare your primitive origin.

>>10052794
Communist art has been historically accessible and designed to please both the masses and the intellectuals. Shostakovich was a Communist artist, the guy who hits Marimbas at random times while singing like a goat is just a yuppy.
What you have defined as
>moral relativist egocentric deskilled decadent dehumanizing derivative deceitful deictic despiteful desensitizing garbage
Is a trait inherent to globalized brand-based capitalism, nothing that makes any sense whatsoever from a Marxist perspective, after all how should random lines on a canvas help the struggle of the proletariat? If anything it does the exact opposite, for it steals from the philistine (who is not willing to read 10+ jargon-based essays to understand this or that undeciphrable artist) the certainity of human excellence in the Arts, which has been a predominant cultural trait of the West for at least the last 3000 years. Under these paradigms, the artist simply stops influencing the working man in any concievable way (which means that he'll let him drown in a sea of capitalist ideology, instead of offering him an alternative).
Contemporary avant-gardistic art is necessarily individualist and essentialist, it simply has no place in any sort of Marxist praxis.

>>10051840
>>10051782
>>10051746
How is modern art being defined here anyways?

I love this kind of surrealist sort of paintings, and the ironic thing is that the people who hate modernism/postmodernism most (the "right") don't seem to understand that communist hated anything outside of realism. It was considered improper/degenerate/"formalist".

Fuck communist and conservative cucks.

>>10052816
you are correct in that regard but the latter issue is pushing it further

when you have competing social and ethnic groups, especially groups such as Muslims that do not give ground on their beliefs there is a battle for what is considered acceptable and relevant to the people. Social cohesion has severely broken down in the past 20 years and not being able to identify with art because patrons are generally sponsoring subject matter that either appeals to a foreign audience in an attempt to seem more tolerant or appeal to all in which messages get lost.

I do agree with you in your points but I think mine are valid to a degree as well.

>>10052842
Soviet art and music, such as that of Shostakovitch, shines trough despite of the communist pressure to turn it into propaganda. The propagandist elements slowly fade away, losing their impact or any meaning, with the art persevering as a testament to the failure of the totalitarian regimes of the past.

>>10052848
>communist hated anything outside of realism
Wrong.

Stalin-era Soviets hated anything outside the realm of *socialist* realism.

>>10052838
whatever faggot

>>10052848
low-brow easily digestible cubist kitsch

>>10052867
To make this clearer, the pre-Stalin Soviets attracted large numbers of modern artists.

>>10052867
stalinism vs the branch of internationalist red anarchy we see now are two entirely different beasts.

the latter has produced no meaningful art imo

>>10052887
>>10052879

>>10052866
The point is that this is the framework that was used in every Communist country. It does not matter if it ended up being cheap propaganda, the point is that it not end up espousing any of the tennents of pomo, for they simply made no sense in a communist society, which was instead the implication of both OP and the anon I was responding too.
I'm not giving any jusgement, I'm just pointing out that what they said is simply wrong.

>>10052879
This lasted only 3 years, and yeah it lead to Russia becoming the hub of Western avantgard artists. Stalin stopped it, for there was no social use for compositions based on sirens and people screaming or plays based on actors mumbling random sounds for 50 minutes.

>>10051746
I don't know fag

>>10051746
I don't know

>>10052867
"socialist realism"

What amazing tolerance for the arts. Communism is a cancer. The fact that they resisted art critical of their ideology alone should be evidence enough of their artistic ideas. Both they and fascists are authoritarian regimes that resist free expression when it contradicts their ideology.

>>10053041
even lenin allowed weird art

it's stalin who decided to ruin everything by becoming machiavelli's ubermensch

>>10053041
Democrats ARE THE REAL RACISTS

>>10051886
But no one would ever reason that, it's too random for interpretation, if I gave any random bystander the technical ability to draw they would come up with the same random shit, it's a vague colorful image that can host any abstract idea but in reality it truly represents nothing

>>10051746
>why modern art is postmodern art
Please leave.

Would y'all mind if I posted a painting or two?

I'm gonna go ahead and put some out there, even if no ones looking.

>>10053524
looks a bit like a dress pattern though
>>10053545
this one looks like an abstracted version of a guy filming himself in a tv screen ad infinitum.
>>10053556
two pieces or one? really made me think
>>10053563
dulux. nil point

>>10052873

>George Grosz
>cubist
>kitsch

we are now enemies

>>10051746
"The Painted World" by Tom Wolfe.

>>10053657
*Word, not world. Sorry; phone posting.

>>10052621
>all european art was politically charged

>>10051746
>modern art
>a bunch of postmodern Marxist bullshit
pic related is without a doubt /yourguy/

>>10053706
also this one

>>10053706
>>10053712
>scrotum

>>10051746
Pic related

Sterile, conceited, destructive, swinish, and monstrously megalomaniacal, the Jews are currently accomplishing, to full capacity, and under the same standard as their conquest of the world, the degradation, the monstrous crushing, and the systematic and total annihilation of our most natural emotions as conveyed in all of our essential, instinctive arts, in music, painting, poetry, theater… “Replacing Aryan emotion with the Nigger’s tom-tom.

Surrealism, an extension of naturalism, is art for hateful robots, an instrument of Jewish despotism, swindle and imposture… As an extension of imbecilic naturalism, and as the rod and pruning shears of the Jewish eunuchs, surrealism is the registry of our emotiona disenfranchisement…the ground for our hecatomb, our communal mass grave for idolatrous Aryan cretins, duped and cuckolded on a cosmic scale… And then it’s an entirely done deal! admirably done…for mugs like us!… At surrealism’s door, long quivering with impatience, with reductionism, and with objectivism, to all of its degrees, all or nearly all of our great writers ceaselessly hone themselves down to the infinitesimal, to the loss of that “jingling bell,” to the loss of the very last bit of substance.

...

Every time, whenever it’s a matter of whether it’ll move to a greater or lesser extent…it goes…out of it come some odd little noises, some hail-like tintinnabulations, some little false notes. And then there’s only so much of it, and then it’s all over… The surrealist invasion, I’ve found, is absolutely ready, and it’s going to proceed without hesitation, by virtue of the law of numbers… Therefore there remains nothing left to be said about Robotic art, before it swoops in to stay.

...

All of the ages of decadence, all of the ages of rot, were superabundant with Jews, critics and homosexuals. The Jews are actually in seventh heaven, in finance, politics and the arts. More persuasive, intrusive, insinuating, and worm-like than ever, they file into the wake of the Picassos, the Sachas, the Cézannes, the Poo-Prousts…they set sail in unsettled seas, they submerge everything… In the process the Jews consolidate their supreme Reform, the ultimate deconstruction of the Aryans. The forcing of the Aryans into ghettos cannot come much later…all done under Nigger enforcement. This will coincide with the advent of the very greatest Jewish Art, and of Robotic-Surrealist art for the robotized indigenous population. There is nothing secret, nothing occult about the “take-nique” of this conquest of the world by way of the Jewish cloaca, this consecration of Jewish Imperialism, and apotheosis of the Jew, both spiritually and materially. It’s there for everyone to admire… It’s taking place right beneath our windows… One only has to lean forward a little…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi4nDKO-UFY

>>10051829
beat me to it

stay mad trad plebs

>>10052281
Wise.

>>10053733
The digits are with you friend
ƐƐ

>>10051782
I seriously consider killing myself now.

What methods do you suggest?

>>10051746
ITT: people arguing over concepts they do not understand, conflating modern and post-modern art, and altogether missing the point.

>>10053647
What sorts of art do you like then? Sure we can find a point of compromise.

Sorry for the poor quality from some of these. They're photographs of paintings featured last Documenta.

>>10053524
>>10053545
>>10053556
>>10053563
>>10053790
>>10053807
thanks anon

did you have any more?

>>10054300
hehe, my picture of a bathroom wall is once again proven to be indistinguishable from contemporary art

>modern art is bad because I measure value in realism
K.Y.S!

>>10052309
No one wants to pay artists to do that stuff anymore. Like the other guy said even the Vatacin isn't interested in religious art anymore. Why would an artist make a painting or sculpture that won't make him money, he needs to pay his rent.

>>10052586
this

>>10054320
nice kitsch you've got there
hardly conceptual, it beats you over the head with primitive symbolism

>>10054304
yeah, na

https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79083?locale=en

try to pick more obscure, less searchable-by-image paintings next time

>>10054336
I don't care.

>>10054324
If you make another pieta, I promise you, the patreon donations alone will pay multiple times your rent

>>10051829
>using "farmer" as an insult
That's kinda weird

>>10051840
Does /pol/ like futurism?

>>10054355
I hope you don't really believe in this

>>10054413

>>10051746
Art morphed into the idea it had to be commentary or a "social statement" rather than an aesthetic or religiously iconographic representation.

Now it seems edgy and cool to ironically and self-awarely mock and reference the commodification of art and its usurpation by advertisement.

>>10054436
>implying Peterson is making the next Pieta

>>10054436
Can you show me some of his paintings?

>>10054304
lmao

>>10052682
>Their reasons are as valid as yours.
I disagree. Why should the opinion of someone who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about matter? The reason things like >>10051782 are so infuriating is that they reduce the genius of the artists they seek to defend and exalt to their mere craftsmanship, as if the only good thing about a painting by Caravaggio or Piero della Francesca (pic related) was their good technique. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a certain topic, the problem arises when idiots like >>10052309 feel like they have the right to express their ignorant opinion. But this is 4chan and talking out of your ass is the norm here.

>>10054456
>>10054458

>>10054477
?

>>10054528
art

>>10054534
Yes, but what does it have to do with my post? Are you trying to say that this is the new Pieta and that people are paying Pererson for it?

>>10054546
not really, it's just a symbol he puts everywhere
it was a joke

>>10052879
I'm conservative, and I happen to like that Constructivist art style.

>>10051746
>modern art
>post modern art
>seen positively by Marxism
Stop embarrassing yourself, nigga.

>>10051840
It goes against their complete white-black world view. Marxist tend to dislike it too actually since it tend to go against most of their shit too. These are simple people who need simple shit.

We have two different boards for art and a humanity board for everything else.

Stop posting this shit here. It's not /lit/-related.

>>10051970
Someone already said ready Culture of Critique.

>>10054451
"Aesthetic or religiously iconographic representations" are "social statements."

There is nothing written in the last half century which even approaches the charm, elegance, wit or poetry of something Mozart hammered out in a workmanlike, assembly-line fashion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkmBlb0xzpU

Historians of the future, if we are capable of producing them at all, will look back on this as a dark age for all culture - food, dance, literature, music and painting. They will be embarrassed for us and by us. And we have no ambassador among us, to them, who can plead our case, and through their own timeless creations implore our progeny to "pity us, for we were only men", because we have become lower than men. We have become dogs.

Grotesque, shallow political displays of culture and essence have replaced essence itself, and that is our legacy. Gone is anything human. Honest expression is a sin, punishable by a chorus of scoffers and the condemnation of emotionally retarded charlatans.

>>10055175
You are delusional.

>>10055175
>There is nothing written in the last half century which even approaches the charm, elegance, wit or poetry of something Mozart hammered out in a workmanlike, assembly-line fashion.
wrong again!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwk5OUII9Vc

>>10054472
>everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about
>I alone am an expert
I suppose you know more than a university professor. You typed all that shit but managed to say nothing. Good job fool!

>>10051836
i knew a guy in art school who had a classical style in oils
he liked to paint landscapes of highway underpasses

>>10051927
duchamp is the true patrician's choice

>>10052637
the idea of cultural marxism being a subversion of classical values parallel to yet distinct from economical marxism's subversion of classical economics

>>10052866
Soviets produced the last great generation of "raised from five to make music" artists, whose line arguably died with Shostakovich and Richard Strauss. There are some remaining classical musicians from Cuba who are apart of the same line. Ironically, totalitarian systems produce the greatest art known to man, while freedom for artists seems to result in hyper-individualism, and appealing to more base desires. By being forced to praise the state, there was something in the removal from the cheap fame and commodifcation of the west which kept the aim true and the motive pure.

The western world did not carry the torch for classical music. There are some Asians and every once in a while a European or American who seem to attain some fluency. But the well has run dry, and the great tree of classical music really did die right before our eyes.

Even the performances sound weak-willed and tired, and none have the same diction as something Furtwangler could bring out.

>>10055246
but all cultural marxists do is constantly whine about how consumerism and globalism is bad etc, the alt-right basically agrees with them. this is why the internet is too stupid to read

>>10052838
your stuffy language betrays the 10 foot pole you have shoved up your ass

>>10055252
>implying the alt-right are the only people against cultural marxism

>>10051840
>the entire reason we like something is because its controversial and you don't "get" it
>I wonder why you don't like it

>>10051746
That isn't modern art. You're looking at the wrong galleries.

Here are some modern art galleries:
http://store.steampowered.com/
https://www.gog.com/
https://www.netflix.com/browse
https://www.miniaturemarket.com/

>>10055450
>t. doesn't know what modernism means
modernism (in visual and performing arts) is largely concerned with a rejection of WWII era culture, as they viewed the culture of Europe at the time as responsible for the atrocities of the war and felt that by rejecting said culture and reinventing it they could steer the zeitgeist away from repeating the horrors of the past.

it doesn't mean current year

>>10055175
t. has never listened to Feldman or Messiaen

>>10052208
Deskilling itself isn't inherently bad but as an excuse it is a bad one

>>10052222
The 70s was when the term 'postmodernism' started to gain critical traction. The 80s were the heyday of postmodernism and it trailed off in the 90s.

Here's a very long but fascinating 4 part article that explains how everything that is being discussed in this thread came about:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/11/15/tristan-tzara-and-the-jewish-roots-of-dada-part-1/

(That's Kevin MacDonald's site by the way.)

>>10051746
Real question. I'm a fag who only appreciates "classical art" what do I read to get into the more modern stuff? How do I start appreciating and stop hating bruh

>>10052270
Actual photorealism is based on photography.

>>10053237
>it's too random for interpretation
Are you a fucking brainlet?

It's a weirdly done painting of plants. If you look at it for more than 0.1 picoseconds and still can't see the branches, flowers, leaves and wood then you have something wrong with you. It's not that abstract of a painting, it's not Jackson Pollock or something.

>>10054336
Wenzel Hablik rules.

>inb4 (((Wenzel Hablik)))

>>10055978
Watch shock of the new.
It was posted itt already.

>>10055402
I don't like modern art because it's controversial and the dumb-dumbs don't get it.

I like modern art because it's a neat way for the artist to imprint feelings on the viewer with creative use of colour and shape instead of realistic depictions. In the case of futurism the more raw way in which it captures ideas like speed, virility, motion, power youth and technological progress is something that I don't think could be adequately done with more conventional art-styles.

>DUDE THESE SIMPLE GEOMETRIC FORMS AND RANDOM SPLATS OF PAINT DISCLOSE THE UNCONSCIOUS MIND INTO CANVAS LMAO

Being completely honest though: there's good modern and postmodern art, however I see the shift we've taken towards the conceptual as unsustainable and something future generations will call a bump on the road. As for the reasons why the art world is this way: almost complete abandonment of skill intensive training in most Fine Arts departments (I'm not saying skill is all there is to good art); commodification of artworks and speculation on avant-garde to an unprecedented level; intelligentsia as a whole moving away from concepts such as truth and other rationalist paradigms, embracing instead quasi-nihilistic relativism, deconstructing everything as a struggle for power, meaning art becomes merely a vessel for statements on such power struggles.

>>10056023
Cool painting.

>>10052867
This. Picasso was a communist.

>>10056023
I actually like this one though

>he unironically "likes" modern "art"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI

I don't mind "modern art" in itself, what really pisses me off is what the media/state push as art nowadays, funding through public spending graffities of negroes gloating that they will fuck white women, piss christ or a giant green anal plug from a guy who used to insert barbie dolls in his anus as part of an artistic representation (and they had the balls to deny it being a plug, saying it was a fucking christmas(s) tree). The obvious political agenda, the cultural subversion paid by us, that I can not stand.

>>10056104
What examples do you have of publically funded obscene art?

>>10056104
For every weird contemporary piece of Art financed by the state there are literally tenths if not hundred of millions going in fully traditional vanues such as classical museums, theaters, philarmonics, opera and so on.
You have just heard too many talking heads telling you that someone is out there to destroy your Western values, which means that you were too clueless to talk about culture in the first place.

>>10056023
You know nothing sbout contemporary Art, nor you know anything about art pedagody.
I mean, if you are that ignorant, why wouldn't you ask a question instead, or do some research? All of your generalizations are useless, and refer to nothing but small fringes. Your entire post is basically a scenario you've made up: why? Do you really think that stereotypes you've heard on the internet account for actual knowledge?

>>10056059
Do people actually watch these videos and agree with them? Makes no sense honestly.

>>10056145
Yes because they agreed with them before they watched the video.

>>10056111
The three I just mentioned, they all happened in France. The graffities and the butt plug in Paris, piss christ was a while ago but it was also public funded

>>10056149
What about all the other Art that is financed? Do you think that actors and classical musicians are paid in kindness?

>>10056149
Can you link them though? I haven't heard about these but they sound interesting.

I already knew about Piss-Christ, though it wasn't funded so much as it won an award that was funded afaik.

>>10056023
The problem with art these days isn't a lack of skill, it's so much still that works become an exercise in technical crafts instead of being 'art'. Commodification is an issue, sure, but the more avant-garde art isn't commodifiable and it has been this way since the 60s i.e. installation art and other site-specific works. Intelligentsia haven't moved away from rationalist paradigms even if undergrads misinterpret postmodernism to mean 'there is no such thing as truth' -- relativistic power struggle is a truth. And art has been political since the late 18th century. That's just how it is.

>>10056121
I'm not saying I don't like every public funded art because they are all part of a plot to subvert culture, I'm saying that I don't like those who were chosen because of a political agenda (or nepotism now that I think of it). A giant green inflatable butt plug has no business in public space and I see no reason why I should pay for it and say thank you. Though you could tell me it's quintessentially french to waste money on bullshit like this million euro giant wooden boar in the place where I was born

>>10056169
Have you considered that shit like this wouldn't happen if France embraced the dialectical science of Marxism-Leninism?

>>10056156
I think they shouldn't be financed at all and the french system is indeed bullshit, I recall an article which ranked worldwide actors by their wage and some french actors while unknown to most where still very very well placed. But my opinion here rely on economics so it is a bit irrelevant

Now that you remind me there is no quicker way to get your movie funded by the state by either sucking the dick of a minister or by pandering to progressist and multicultural ideals. That or making an holocaust movie.

State funded art is a mistake, in France at least

>>10056184
State funded art has been out there as long as we've had a canon. You are not describing a modern phenomenon.

>>10056184
France seems to have valued for a long time the joy in shaking one free from the morass of the bourgeois everyday experience.

>>10056192
I would not say that nobles acting as patron of the arts is state funding but I get what you say.

>>10056192
Is it necessarily justifiable in any case though? I'm not that anon but I somewhat agree with what he's saying.

imo if you're not willing to make art for free you probably shouldn't be making it at all. If a lack of public funding meant less art I don't think this would be such a bad thing.

>>10056184
The same is true here. Most of the applications for state funding of theater or stuff like that contain words like "heteronormative critique" and "multiculturalism". It's not art anymore, it's shitty politics.

>>10051808
everybody likes futurism, we aren't talking about that

>>10056198
France is literally the most bourgeois country in history.

>>10056211
It is modern art though and if you like futurism it shouldn't be hard to consider the value of other forms of modern art.

>>10051746
Culture of Critique. There's really no need to go further than that. Because Marxism cannot arise in a society that has any concept of beauty or tradition, all beauty and tradition must be destroyed.

Ironically the most evil and disgusting thing imaginable, supposedly in the service of the common man. History has shown time and again that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

>>10056205
>Is it necessarily justifiable in any case though?
You tell me: what are the contributions of the global mass market to Art? what is the Art that has been promoted by the masses? Mostly cheap, basically worthless pop culture with no aesthetic and conceptual value whatsoever.
States funding artists give you Handël and Goethe, free markets give you Radiohead and Rupi Kaur.
You may make an ethical argument against funding based on taxes, but you should also keep in mind that that would imply the death of all Art. It's up to you to decide wether this minor compromise is worth it. For one, to give you a prsctical example, the lack of state funding would mean having no working philarmonics, and opera tickets would cost thousands dollars, alienating this way those few citizens who still hold on traditional European high culture: this would be the first victim of this plan.

>>10056209
That funding includes all the plays of the great authors of our past. You guys are just cherrypicking.
This is what happens:
the State funds 100 projects, maybe 5 of these projects are controversial, philistines read about it on the internet and since they know absolutely nothing sbout the other 95 other programs and since they never bothered to check them, not even on their existence (no one is posting clickbait articles about them on 4chan), they immediatly assume that that is ALL the Art that is being produced. The claim is based on ignorance, and it functions as a comfirmation bias, which, like every other confirmation bias, selects tiny samples to "prove" extraordinary claims, which are in fact contraddicted by what is the actual state sof affairs.

>>10051974
Yeah, I fucking wish. Nazis had a sense of aesthetics. Brainlet "conservatism" is a Jewish psyop. It has nothing to do with us, these guys signal harder against us than the fucking Left does. Look I get that you hate us, but please activate that frontal lobe which I know you have for one second. Who do you think opposes us harder, you, or the fucking kikes? Think now. I'd have you beaten by stormtroopers with batons, but I'd have Dennis Prager stuffed into a gas chamber. At least on the Left you can criticize Israel without getting stuffed in the refrigerator by William F. Buckley. Not to put too fine a point on it dude but you're more Nazi-Friendly than these assholes are. Infiltrating the Left is as easy as pretending to be Hispanic. I've been doing it for years.

If you think you retards are some sort of bulwark against Nazis, you've got a dangerous revelation coming in a few years. We already own your side. It'll take one push, one good hard push to turn the implicit antisemitism explicit. Then we'll have every purple-haired retard thug throwing molotovs through kike businesses. You mark my words.

>>10056227
>Nazis had a sense of aesthetics.
Pic related.

>>10056231
What, was the contempt in my tone not explicit enough? German fashion has always been strictly derivative, I was not speaking with appreciation, but with pity. It is regrettably not within the German character to innovate the concept of beauty himself, but rather to ape the trappings of greater former empires. NSDAP Germany was literally just a bunch of barbarians trying super hard to be the Roman Empire.
But they were *trying*. I'll give them that much. In between munching on pretzels, repeating porcine marching songs and shoveling cabbage into their mouths, they did manage to produce a few buildings of passable quality. Let's not sell Speer short, the man had a degree of vision. The only thing the NatSocs got right was that they acknowledged the superior Latin race as their spiritual liege. But, much like Matt Ward, they butchered everything beautiful about that liege in the most agonizing manner possible.
Probably why they lost the war desu.

>>10056224
>5 out of 95 controversial
In the case of french movies it's actually the reverse
You seem to say that I only learn about controversial pieces through clickbait articles which is not true, they are exposed on the public space for all tp see. I have seen lot of public expositions and most of them were regular memes, carboard memes, absolutely retarded shit... if that is only 5% of the production then why don't they ever show the 95% non shit remaining art?

>>10056224
I personally wouldn't advocate for free markets either as I'm a communist. I'm making the case that art should not be funded period by anyone.

>what is the Art that has been promoted by the masses? Mostly cheap, basically worthless pop culture with no aesthetic and conceptual value whatsoever.
I would strongly disagree with this, pop culture is not promoted by the masses it is imposed on the masses by the bourgeois culture industry. Actual culture from the masses manifests itself as folk culture, something that has been totally annihilated by industrial capitalist society. For thousands of years the masses made great culture in the form of songs, stories, fashions, dancing, simply because it was fun.

>>10056251
Not him, but do you go to galleries, concerts and theaters? I have been in Paris for 5 months last year, and everyday I could pick a different gallery and a different concerto among multiple choices, which contained both traditional and avantgardistic options. If you're starving for representational paintings and tonal music, just go see it.

>>10056263
I'm not talking of galleries which qi think id a different case because the prople picking art pieced actually know what they are doing, unlike the politicians
And again France is a special as Paris is stealing most of the worthy art pieces while the provinces are left with memes

People who say realism is the only true form of art seem to think the world operates completely on a technical level. A singer is only good if she can hit really high notes. A movie is only good if its well shot.

I can't imagine how terribly boring living life like that would be.

>>10056262
>I personally wouldn't advocate for free markets either as I'm a communist. I'm making the case that art should not be funded period by anyone.
Then you get no Art, and leave monopoly to the free markets. Wether you like it or not, they're out there.

>I would strongly disagree with this, pop culture is not promoted by the masses it is imposed on the masses by the bourgeois culture industry.
>imposed
Not really. Also traditional art is inherently bourgeoise, although this element can be co-opted quite easily.
>For thousands of years the masses made great culture in the form of songs, stories, fashions, dancing, simply because it was fun.
Were they singing Beethoven, or were they singing simple melodies on 4chord songs? Miley Cyrus is the 21st century corrispective of tavern and folk music. The way in which her music is distributed could be called bourgeoise (although when corporations are the subject this term loses meaning), but her music is certainly not.

Get your praxis together.

>>10056271
You might not be talking about galleries and concerts, but this is were most funds go.

any nice right wing current art movements? not that i am right wing, but the left is so fucking boring i can't even stand it anymore

>>10056279
I don't think so, I think most of the money goes in the special social funding of artists (intermittents du spectacle)
That public spending has positive effects i don't deny but it as also nasty side effects. I think a state should not interfere with art, ministry of culture is soviet tier shit and it ends up with incestuous relationships between politicians and artists trained in the art of getting gibsmedat

>>10056292
The point is that with no patronage you get trash. How hard is it to understand? Have you given even just a cursory glance on the last 60 years?
Not only state funding is necessary to create new Art, but it is also necessary to mantain the Art of the past, so that we can now experience and aknowledge the past peaks of our own culture(to argue against it is to argue against both tradition and progress).
You are ignoring the reality of facts while operating on principles that lead to the annihilation of culture in Art in all forms. If you are going to argue for it, at least be upfront about it.

>>10056279
>Then you get no Art, and leave monopoly to the free markets. Wether you like it or not, they're out there.

>communist society
>free market
>any market
Does not compute.

>Were they singing Beethoven, or were they singing simple melodies on 4chord songs?
This is a very bourgeois way of looking at things, as if there is only high-culture and low-culture. As if culture is better the more elaborate it is and simple culture is no good at all.

Not only is that not true, zeroing in on music in particular is extremely dishonest. Obviously people with less education and resources are going to produce simpler music. However outside of that oral bardic tradition produced works that are to this day considered master-pieces, from Homer to Beowulf. If you think art propagated by the masses "Mostly cheap, basically worthless pop culture with no aesthetic and conceptual value whatsoever." you are a pseud and probably a wannabe aristocrat.

>>10056283
The contemporary right wing are a bunch of anti-intellectual plebs so no.

Futurism isn't current but it is good right-wing modern art.

>>10056308
60 years ago there were the golden age of french cinema. What I'm seeing right now is that french spending is encouraging trash to be mass produced

And patronage can be private too

>>10056316
>Does not compute.
You can't just pretend that free markets do not exist, nor you can pretend that you are already living in a communist world (this would betray Marxist praxis at all levels, stwrting from your inability of picturing dialectical materialism and historicism, since you are choosing to ignore reality cause of your principles).
If you say "we should not fund Arts because this would make no sense in a Communist society", and then you apply this claim in a capitalist one, you will end up gifting the entire Art world to the free markets, economicizing it once and for all. Again, you can't just pretend that free markets so not exist, your stance has to account for it.

>This is a very bourgeois way of looking at things, as if there is only high-culture and low-culture. As if culture is better the more elaborate it is and simple culture is no good at all.
Hello? Have you read the sentence you've written I was responding to? You told me that pop culture is bourgeoise, I have pointed out that pop culture is just folk culture distributed nationally (in a handful of cases cases even globally).

>If you think art propagated by the masses "Mostly cheap, basically worthless pop culture with no aesthetic and conceptual value whatsoever." you are a pseud and probably a wannabe aristocrat.
So you are going to deviate in this direction? You are also trying to discuss music history while knowing nothing sbout music history, since for some fucked up reason you think that composers were rich bourgeoise, and not workers who were treated as shoemakers or coocks until the mid 19th century.
If I place Monteverdi's Madrigals above your favourite C-Am-Em-G song I'm not being classist, if anything the musicians on my side were the poor ones.
Regardless, I don't think you are actually talking sbout anything, you are just operating on stereotypes, and you are willing to apply them brutally, with no nuance. Since this is the case (and since you have proven to be nothing more than a contrarian, costantly shifting the topic for no reason whatsoever) I'll stop replying to you. Hopefully one day you'll learn how to debate, and how to behave when you're too ignorant to make bold claims.

>>10056325
Do you realize that Post-WWII French artists recieved far more fundings than contemporary ones?

>>10056316
Especially considering "low culture" music and "high culture" music were often intertwined, both influencing the other. Beethoven composed folk songs, as did composers before him

>>10056356
I'm not aware of that, I remember looking for such things before but I couldn't find anything about special funds for cinema like there are right now

>>10056341
Semantics, if this were the case we would not have this conversation here. It is obvious that to get any kind of patronage nowadays is borderline impossible, and that state fundings are pretty much the only way to finance and mantain at a continental level high art.
By arguing against state funding you are arguing against the last barrier that keeps our culture together. Once the historic memory of the great Art of our past is erased, we will become Americans, rather than Europeans.

>>10054472
So what is the one true way of appreciating art? Care to share with us simple minded folk?
Have you published your solved system of aesthetics? You need to share with the world your findings as you claim to resolved one of the key problems that has baffled philosophy for centuries

>>10056358
Beethoven wrote 2 sets of them and a few ones here and there. They were pretty much all composed for money, mechanically (he didn't even had the lyrics).
To say that Beethoven was influenced by folks song in a non-superficial way means that you have never studied his scores. They have not the same validity.

>>10056371
I'm saying Beethoven or all composers were influenced by folk song, I'm saying it happened. The gap was not as big as today's gap between pop music and higher form of music

>>10056377
>I'm saying it happened.
I haven't denied it.

>The gap was not as big as today's gap
I have denied this. Yes it was, and if you're claiming this I know you don't even know how to read a score. Dante quoted peasants in his Inferno, yet only an incoherent person would say that the gap between Dante and peasants making fart jokes was not that big. The musicla figures and notions used in folk music are the same ones, both harmonically, formally and structurally,mof pop music. This is a fact

>>10056387
So you are saying that classical pieces never ended up in folk tunes? Like Lully's march for Turenne's regiment or the soldiers chorus in Gounod's Faust becoming the unofficial hymn of France at one time?
I don't know the first thing about music theory but I'm pretty sure folk dances had influence on artists from medieval to baroque and vice versa

>>10054621
Well, good for you. So did the communists (emphasis on "did").

In any case, conservative differs by country and social situation.

>>10051778
Do you know where I can find this on pdf?

>>10056411
As I've said
>Dante quoted peasants in his Inferno, yet only an incoherent person would say that the gap between Dante and peasants making fart jokes was not that big.
A folk tune being in a classical piece, or a classical tune being in a folk one is irrelevant, for they operate in different contexts. An example are the themes of the Second movement of Beethoven's 31st Piano Sonata, whoch are derived from 2 simple songs he heard in his childhood. As you can hear, the fsct that that theme is there gives no validity to folk music, for what works in that piece is not present in those folk tunes.
Since you know nothing sbout music theory, my doubt is that you are vastly overrating the role of melody, which makes you think that Beethoven using a folk one means that they are somehow comparable. I thinkthat my example with Dante and peasants summarize this misunderstanding properly.

>>10056428
I'm saying that common people were aware of some of the higher pieces of music because it sometimes ended up in vulgarized froms such as songs for instance. I concede that you are right about folk song influence on higher music since after all I know nothing about it and you seem knowledgeable about it.
But I stand my ground on the translation from higher to lower music, I have yet to see what is considered today as the higher form of music ending up in popular form somehow

>>10056356
Read my initial clarification of what I'm arguing for.
>I personally wouldn't advocate for free markets either as I'm a communist. I'm making the case that art should not be funded period by anyone.

Fundamentally I think it is bad that for-profit artists exist. I do not think art should be privately funded, I do not think it should be state-funded, these are both bad. Saying "oh, if the state stops funding art then pop culture will be the only highly-visible art left" is not really an argument against it when I'm simultaneously arguing against both. You're pretending my stance doesn't account for it when I've made it very clear that I think both need to be done away with.

Your counter-argument to this
>Then you get no Art, and leave monopoly to the free markets. Wether you like it or not, they're out there.
Just flat out ignores my actual argument. You're pretending I'm not criticizing the professionalization of art and am just arguing that the state should cut all arts funding. This is supremely dishonest.

>You told me that pop culture is bourgeoise, I have pointed out that pop culture is just folk culture distributed nationally
I see I was right, you are supremely dishonest. What I told you is that pop-culture is imposed upon the masses by a bourgeois culture industry. This is true and this is precisely why pop culture is not folk culture, hence my response. You are viewing art as "high culture vs. low culture" which does not account for the actual arguments that I'm making.

The thing about pop culture is that the masses are not participants in it, they are consumers of it. It only exists to be consumed for profit. The masses are not the ones making it, it does not come from them. It comes from a bourgeois industry that they are external to and only involved in insofar as they are customers. It is no artistic outlet of theirs

The thing about folk culture is that it can only exist in an environment where the "folk" is actively involved in it. There is a very fluid relationship between the artist and the audience. It encompasses a kind of living tradition that evolves with the folk as it lives through them. You just outright ignored a huge part of my argument that folk culture is not just simple plebeian waste as you'd like to pretend, in many ways it can equal if not surpass high-culture hence the point that zeroing in on music is disingenuous as it ignores the wealth of other artistic crafts included in folk culture, like oral poetic tradition. Is The Odyssey just proto pop-culture as well?

The reason it is important to recognize that you're dividing art into high and low culture is because the way you're doing it is wrong. And why it is wrong is fundamental to demonstrating why your elitist approach to art is wrong. Yes, folk culture produces simple songs, that's not a bad thing and it's not the only thing to come out of folk culture. Calling it a more localized form of pop culture is just ignorant.

>>10056356
>>10056462
>since for some fucked up reason you think that composers were rich bourgeoise, and not workers who were treated as shoemakers or coocks until the mid 19th century.
Where did I say this?

>If I place Monteverdi's Madrigals above your favourite C-Am-Em-G song I'm not being classist, if anything the musicians on my side were the poor ones.
No, but if you dismiss the entirety of folk culture from pre-history to the contemporary underdeveloped world as "basically pop culture" that is classist. I've never criticized your love for high-culture, that's cool and important. I'm criticizing your disregard for everything else.

I'm not calling you a wannabe aristocrat because you like Monteverdi, I'm calling you a wannabe aristocrat because you're a pretentious tit who comes out with stuff like "what is the Art that has been promoted by the masses? Mostly cheap, basically worthless pop culture with no aesthetic and conceptual value whatsoever."

2/2

>>10056008
looks like a nintendo game, is that new kirby concept art?

Thankfully since all art is /lit/-related (being literature itself), I'll dump what I have to end this thread early.

>>10053807
Kek, I only took a couple of pictures including that one. The quality of paintings by eastern european/slavic artists at Documenta really stood out to me.

>>10056601
art about maids is pretty cool

>>10056272
>a movie is only good if it's well shot

Well, it's certainly not good if it isn't. That's a big part of the medium as prose is to literature. The lazily shot film might have something profound to share just as the guy who shows up to an interview in a Hawaiian shirt might be a good employee.

>>10056605
I'm just gonna start a new one

>>10056634
k

How is modern art post-modern?

>>10055468
>a rejection of WWII era culture
You're narrowing the definition of modernism here. Pop art today is also widely founded on this premise anyway, because pop art today is founded on capitalist/globalist industry. Video games, tabletop games, and Netflix are American entertainment and art.

>>10056626
He might. It could be a job-interview for a Hawaiian shirt model.

>>10054320
Pretty sure this is on the cover of Good and Evil by Penguin publishing

And with less than 10 to the bump limit, my work here is done.

See you all tonight to derail all the art threads. <3

I kinda like this stuff

>>10056767
All the covers of the Penguin Classics editions of Nietzsche are Wenzel Hablik paintings.

This one is on Twilight of the Idols & The Antichrist.

>>10056785
I got Zurasthrasza (fuck spelling) as an ebook though, I fear I might regret that.

>>10051746
Critics are delusional retards and in cahoots with the associated media. Good art is still produced, just not pronounced in our culture and design (damn fags).

What kind of art even matters nowadays?

>>10056868
>braphog art
post it from behind

art is dead

>>10056462
>Fundamentally I think it is bad that for-profit artists exist.
What you think is wrong for this simple reason: to reach the pinnacles of artistic craft, as it happened for Dante, Beethoven and Rembrandt, the artist has to devote his entire life to his Art. It's a full time job, which means that without any institution caring for their welfare, they either have to limit their creative potential (by doing other jobs) or starve (since food and rent still cost money, regardless of what you "think"). As you've demonstrated earlier, you are not willing to consider not even for a second the conclusions and implications of your "thoughts".

>You're pretending my stance doesn't account for it when I've made it very clear that I think both need to be done away with.
Wether you are against it or not is irrelevant, the implication is still out there: cut the fundings for the Arts (which is something every government can do) and you'll see the monopoly of Art by the part of pop culture (which instead can't be suppressed by governments, unless you are willing to kill people over it). Your thoughts are divorced from reality.
>You're pretending I'm not criticizing the professionalization of art and am just arguing that the state should cut all arts funding.
Criticizing the professionalization of art is truly idiotic, for Art has always been a profession. This romantic drivel is worthless in the real world: if the artist is working on his art most of the time, accounting for his craft, he is being a professional. This was true for ancient Greece flutists, for Medieval iconists and for 20th century avantgard actors.
>What I told you is that pop-culture is imposed upon the masses by a bourgeois culture industry.
What is imposed is only trivially different from what would arise independently of major corporations (4chord songs about trivial matters, or serious matters treated trivially).

>The masses are not the ones making it, it does not come from them.
Now you are pretending that the masses used to come up with their own song. Nope, it was still all done by professional figures who would compose simple songs for the people around them: basicslly the same exact thing, the pnly difference being that it took place in the streets and in taverns (which still happens due to the existence of recordings). No, they didn't do it for free.
>The Odyssey just proto pop-culture as well?

They Odissey is a work of art, pretty far from the simple songs we were talking about earlier. I won't respond to the rest of this paragraph due to the fact that you are unaware of what actually folk music was. You're idolizing something you know nothing about because, I guess, it makes sense in your head.
>Calling it a more localized form of pop culture is just ignorant.
I guess you are tone-deaf, then. It happens.

1/2

>>10056873
sorry dont have it.

>>10056900
>without any institution caring for their welfare
Or without an inheritance, a patron, a generous relative, a university position, a royal pension, or a sinecure.

>>10056465
>Where did I say this?

When I said that the masses are not capable of composing music as valuable as the one of Beethoven you told me
>This is a very bourgeois way of looking at things,
Which means that you do not regard Beethoven as part of the people, instead you see him, or the act of recognizing the obvious superiority of his music to popular folk songs, as inherently bourgeoise.
This probably stems from the fact that you are operating on centuries old stereotypes about the relationship between high Art and the bourgeoise.
>No, but if you dismiss the entirety of folk culture from pre-history to the contemporary underdeveloped world as "basically pop culture" that is classist.
It's not, because class is not involved in this matter: the aforementioned Beethoven got educated in a poor, abusive household in which he was mistreaten, beaten, starved and demeaned costantly, while living in miserable conditions, so tell me: why is it classist to value Beethoven over simple folk songs? At what point his upbringing snd his music signified anything close to the bourgeoise? You are not attacking the act of placing hierarchies, you are attacking virtue itself. Again, to recognize the obvious value of Beethoven's music is NOT classist, only a clueless stereotype-driven drone incapable of giving even a cursory glance to the real world could think that.

>what is the Art that has been promoted by the masses? Mostly cheap, basically worthless pop culture with no aesthetic and conceptual value whatsoever
Am I wrong? What is the Art promoted by the masses? What are those pieces of Art that actually challenge the best that High Art has produced? Were is that folk song that ends up being as valid as a Bach cantata?
We can talk in hypotheticals, but the reality of facts is that state-funding of the Arts, wether you like it or not, has produced the greatest pieces of Art we know of. This is how you get a Goethe.

But again, I'm sure you won't listen, since you're living in your own world with its own rules, which are apparently all driven by your notion of common sense. As a communist you are an useless disgrace.

>>10056911
None of those options but tenure are stable in any concievable way, nor they give you any security in the long term. Also I'm pretty sure you guys do not realize how rare are patreons nowadays (and no, Patreon and Gofundme does not count, since it's basically prostitution).
Since the free markets are unreliable, it should be up to the society to care for its greatest artists, by maybe guaranteeing them a wage. If this is not done, you'll see our culture crumbling even more.

>>10051746
>why modern art is a bunch of postmodern Marxist bullshit

you don't know about art if you think this

>>10052270
>by the way, the CIA did fund abstract art, that's well documented and not some kinda "lol tinfoil hat" delusion.

Yes, and? Everyone knows about this, I'm not sure why you a priori assume noone does. It was done during the cold war period, and in its context it is rather dull.

>the same thing is done today in asia and latin america.
[quotation needed]

>>10051746
>What's the real reason for why modern art is a bunch of postmodern Marxist bullshit?
All of it, 'modern art' and Marxism included, is just a slightly modernized version of traditional European Gnostic religious tradition. The Gnostics were (and are) iconoclasts (like Muslims), they oppose representational art on spiritual grounds.

>>10056900
>It's a full time job, which means that without any institution caring for their welfare, they either have to limit their creative potential (by doing other jobs) or starve (since food and rent still cost money
You do understand what communism is? Do you?

>Wether you are against it or not is irrelevant, the implication is still out there:
Here's the thing, you're disingenuously ignoring half my thinking. I explicitly just called you out on this and you went back to this strawman, I'm not arguing for suddenly cutting state arts funding any more than I'm arguing for exclusively state funding art, I'm arguing that a professionalized culture industry is bad.

>Criticizing the professionalization of art is truly idiotic, for Art has always been a profession.
Definition of "professionalize"
>Give (an occupation, activity, or group) professional qualities, typically by increasing training or raising required qualifications.
>‘attempts to professionalize the police are resisted by many’

This non-argument is totally reductionist.

>What is imposed is only trivially different from what would arise independently of major corporations
Okay, then address the rest of my argument where I discuss this rather than taking pot-shots at random at of context sentences.

>Now you are pretending that the masses used to come up with their own song
They did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_music#Definitions
>However, despite the assembly of an enormous body of work over some two centuries, there is still no certain definition of what folk music (or folklore, or the folk) is.[5][2] Some do not even agree that the term Folk Music should be used.[2] Folk music may tend to have certain characteristics[3] but it cannot clearly be differentiated in purely musical terms. One meaning often given is that of "old songs, with no known composers",[6] another is that of music that has been submitted to an evolutionary "process of oral transmission.... the fashioning and re-fashioning of the music by the community that give it its folk character".[7]

Folk music was an open source phenomenon, composed by, played by and added to by the folk. This is what I mean when I say there's a very fluid relationship between the artist and the audience, the art itself grows, moves and changes with the people.

What you seem to be doing is acting as if capitalist economic modes have always existed when that is frankly retarded. And you don't demonstrate it in any way either.

1/2

>>10057011
>>10056900
>They Odissey is a work of art, pretty far from the simple songs we were talking about earlier.
It was you who zeroed in on music when I brought up folk culture in general. And I've been criticizing you for doing that as being dishonest since you first mentioned it, since it ignores the wealth of other folk art that has been produced. Hence the reference to the Odyssey, it is a work of art by your own standards, that is a product of oral Greek folklore. The Odyssey doesn't exist because a rich Greek dude sat down one day and decided he wanted to pay Homer to make it.

>I guess you are tone-deaf, then. It happens.
Okay, right. Show me some examples of folk music that make you hate it so much. Here are some examples of folk music that I really like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbY17Lr_wu4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiLR0mWDO18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEDy3vEX8Ms

>Which means that you do not regard Beethoven as part of the people,
How in god's name did you justify this silly ass interpretation to yourself?
In what universe does saying your mentality that simple songs are worthless is bourgeois mean I'm saying Beethoven is loaded?

Seriously, enlighten me on the mental gymnastics that go on in your head.

>It's not, because class is not involved in this matter: the aforementioned Beethoven got educated in a poor
Slap yourself and read what I said again. I didn't say you're classist for liking Beethoven, I said you're classist for disregarding folk culture as worthless. You conveniently did not quote the part of that paragraph where I explained this to you.

>Am I wrong?
Yes, as I've been explaining to you throughout this entire conversation.

>>10057011
>You do understand what communism is? Do you?
Do you understand the material conditions that permeates our society? Again, do you understand that we do not live under communism, and that rent and food still costs money? Apparently your solution to liberate humankind from wage slavery is to eliminate professions while still being in a capitalist society. Again, you're just saying that you're a communist, but your inability to analize material conditions just shows me that you don't know the first thing about it.
>>Give (an occupation, activity, or group) professional qualities, typically by increasing training or raising required qualifications.
This describes literally every great artist in our canon, and it also describes literally every aesthetical evolution in our history. At this point you are ignoring the most basic tennents of the history of Western culture.
>Folk music was an open source phenomenon, composed by, played by and added to by the folk.
Hello, what are covers? What do friends do when one of them know how to play a guitar and they want to sing something? This aspect of music is still inherent to contemporary pop culture, since this is what populare and folk culture is: all that art that can be replicated and modified by untrained people. The only difference is that we know the composers of these songs, but this changes absolutely nothing in how they are consumed. The folk songs you are mentioning are simply hits of the past.

>What you seem to be doing is acting as if capitalist economic modes have always existed when that is frankly retarded. And you don't demonstrate it in any way either.
This is something you are making up. I have just mentioned that artists have to work on their Art all day long, not because we live in a capitalist society, but because they are artists. Since we live in a capitalist society another implication arises: if an artisr work all day long while living in a society that do not promotes Art, that artist will starve, unless he chooses to limit himself by subjecting himself to other jobs.
This is not an ideological claim, it's a material one: if people do not eat they starve, if people have no place to sleep in they'll be homeless. How this obvious fsct is controversial to you escapes me.

>Hence the reference to the Odyssey, it is a work of art by your own standards, that is a product of oral Greek folklore.
Wrong, for Epic poems were recited and modified by Aeds, who were elite musicians and poets. What you would define as "elitism" is present in your claim too.

>The Odyssey doesn't exist because a rich Greek dude sat down one day and decided he wanted to pay Homer to make it.
Do you think Aeds were working for free? Do you think they were doing it on the side? Where do you think they were getting food from? Have you got even the slightest clue about how Greek art and its management worked?

1/2

>>10057013
>Okay, right. Show me some examples of folk music that make you hate it so much. Here are some examples of folk music that I really like.
Pop culture. Do you think this is high art? Does it hold any comparison?
God, you don't know what Art is. You're like a child.

>In what universe does saying your mentality that simple songs are worthless is bourgeois mean I'm saying Beethoven is loaded?
I'm not saying that Beethoven was loaded, I'm saying that he was part of the proletariat, and has been so for his entire life, a fact that you are deliberately ignoring. So tell me, how the fuck is preferring Beethoven to simple songs bourgeoise? Is it bourgeoise only because it's classical music, even if its roots are found virtually always in the proletariat?

>I said you're classist for disregarding folk culture as worthless. You conveniently did not quote the part of that paragraph where I explained this to you.
Which is an aesthetical claim, not a classist one, since, again, preferring Beethoven is not classist. I would sacrifice folk music in its entirety to save the last 3 Beethoven's sonatas: this is how worthless folk music is, and this is the context in which it is worthless.
If you don't understand the reason behind this comparison, is because you have lost track of your precedent thoughts, which had folk music and state-funded music at 2 opposites. You tried to push for the model that produced folk music, I've pointed out that all folk music is nothing compared to even a single masterpiece of a great composer.

>Yes, as I've been explaining to you throughout this entire conversation.
You've just explained how you operate on semantics, how you think that principles that do not refer to reality should be applied because your little stupid head thinks so, and how analyzing the material conditions is apparently the worse sin concievable (it's either that or excessive stupidity).

>>10056028
>>10056045
It's cool and not as alienating as most abstract art because it still has (even if very vague) figurative elements. My view is that abstract art and any visual art lacking in mimesis will never make it mainstream. It's simply too cold, unrelatable and too alienating for the average Joe.

>>10056125
>hurr durr
I went to one of Europe's most well known art programs to study Fine Arts but end up graduating in Film. I work on the field until this very day and know many people who went to graduate and work with plastic arts, painting and so on. That was my assessment of the experience and it's one many of my colleagues would certainly agree with: most of them are thankful for the networking we've done in University, but the course load was extremely lacking wrt hands on experience and training.

>>10056161
There is a problem with lack of skill in Fine Arts programs. Ask students or go on some online forums and you'll see what I'm talking about. Most art programs with specific, intensive technical training are directed at more industrial fields of art such as 3d modelling, digital painting, etc. There are studios that offer programs with heavy work loads, most of them are classically oriented and very conservative. I disagree completely with your other two points: culture as a whole seems to have shifted in this direction I pointed out.

>>10052208
Don't blame the messenger, anon. Duchamp just pointed at something that was there in the first place.

>>10057567
Care to expand on this?

>>10054384
futurism and dadaism are /pol/ approved

>>10058123
Why do you say that?

>>10053770
Traditional ones

>>10058172
Futurist artists were Italian fascists and the art itself often exalted heroic fascist individuals and acts like the march on Rome. It also emphasized youth, strength, violence, use of technology etc. in a very "will to power" way.

Dadaism was a mystical, ironic, and anti-bourgeoisie art form that was meant to shock the sensibilities of the sleeping masses. Dadaism was an offshoot of Futurism created by people like Arturo Ciacelli in Rome and embraced by radical tradionalists like Julius Evola for its mysticism.

>>10058240
>Dadaism was an offshoot of Futurism
Not sure about that, anon. If you have historical references, I'd like to hear them.