/lit/ - Literature

Who says a crucifix in a fish tank full of piss isn't beautiful? Are you some kind of art nazi?

>The inferno of the living is not something that will be; if there is one, it is what is already here, the inferno where we live every day, that we form by being together. There are two ways to escape suffering it. The first is easy for many: accept the inferno and become such a part of it that you can no longer see it. The second is risky and demands constant vigilance and apprehension: seek and learn to recognize who and what, in the midst of inferno, are not inferno, then make them endure, give them space.

This, according to OP, is "without beauty"
This, according to OP, is "without truth"

OP is huge faggot and should stick to looking at Bouguereau's paintings and leave the real arts to the adults.

>>11279065

What do you expect when the artist of this area are neither beautiful or truthful?

>>11279065
>without beauty or truth
You don't know what those words mean

>>11279178

Enlighten me.

Anyone who posts kitsch of the lowest order and wants to discuss aesthetic matters at the same time should be ignored.
Discuss.

>>11279065
Postmodern/modern (same thing) artists certainly lack the level of mastery that classical artists had. It is simply not as impressive. And yes, the only "truth" it might contain is that truth felt only by the artist who just puts down what he feels impulsively, like a child. And modern art doesnt care at all about beauty, that should be pretty clear.

monumental spooks you've got there champ

>>11279210
>Classical artists
>Posts 19th cent neoclassical
I don't deserve sharing a board with such big brained nibbas

Why does every thread that starts with "postmodernism is X" or something like that always sound so retarded, like if it was posted by a complete idiot who thinks post-modernism = nihilist or some other kind of spook?

>>11279238
I blame Jordan Peterskn

>>11279200
I dunno anon, that looks like high order kitsch to me desu.

>>11279231
Are you retarded?
>twitternigger meme
Nvm

>>11279243
What did he mean by this?

>a thread is dilettantish bitching about art
>the bitching is accompanied by gaudy neoclassicist garbage

every.single.time.

>>11279241
Me too, but I don't want to imagine the answer is that simple, it implies that hack has an incredible level of power over too much people. I don't want to belive it. I don't consider myself an intellectual neither well read, and I'm pretty ignorant about art, but these people are just out of control.
>>11279210
>Postmodern/modern (same thing)
See? How can someone belive this? Why can't they at least check wikipedia?

>>11279065
>beauty
>truth
well spooked my friend

>>11279143
this is really bad writing

>pseud thinks he is cool for disliking Bouguereau

>>11279273
They are the same vacuous garbage. I guess the postmodern shit has to use words more or something.

>>11279295
t. brainlet

>>11279210
>Postmodern/modern (same thing)
I'm sure you're highly educated if you concluded that nearly all historians of art and philosophers of the recent decades completely fucked up the cultural and artistic periodization.
>certainly lack the level of mastery that classical artists had
They don't lack it. At a decent academy you will study perspective and anatomy like every classical painter. An acquaintance who went to one told me how once he drew some tiny muscle slightly incorrectly and his prof noticed the mistake.
>It is simply not as impressive
The purpose of art isn't to be impressive, you faggot.
>And yes, the only "truth" it might contain is that truth felt only by the artist who just puts down what he feels impulsively
What truth is in the paintings posted itt, beside pretty girls and anime-tier scenes?
>And modern art doesnt care at all about beauty, that should be pretty clear.
>who is Matisse
>who is Klimt

>>11279266
When you literally have no argument

The thing is, I also feel a primal urge to shit on what is considered "modern art" in the mainstream. I don't know why this is the case, and I know it almost always sounds ridiculous and uneducated when those feelings are articulated by others; the rage pundits that hover around the periphery of the artistic scene.
What's the patrician's guide to learning about this most recent period of art history and why abstract expressionism/avant gard (I don't even know what to call it) art bothers me so?

>>11279322
that's not very nice mate
also untrue! my brain is the best

>>11279350

post-modern and modern are essentially the same thing; rot precedes putrid rot.

>it's an anon wants to blithely critique postmodernism without talking about how its attendant waning of historicity is the paradigmatic fate of culture under post-Fordist capitalism episode

>>11279332
>nearly all historians of art and philosophers of the recent decades completely fucked up the cultural and artistic periodization
Yes.
>They don't lack it.
They dont use it apparently.
>The purpose of art isn't to be impressive, you faggot.
Displays of artistic skill is one way to determine who is a better artist...
>Matisse
>Klimt
Lmao you are really saying that those piles of vomit are more beautiful than literally any classical astist? If you're willing to lie to yourself like this how can we have a discussion.

>>11279379

Can I regurgitate big words to sound smart without warrant too anon?

>>11279273
We all know the cure for this

>>11279381
Klimt pile of shit and rectangles. No structure. No meaning. You could see something similar done by a second grader.

>>11279381
>Lmao you are really saying that those piles of vomit are more beautiful than literally any classical astist? If you're willing to lie to yourself like this how can we have a discussion
Imagine being so ignorant and arrogant at the same time
>>11279369
No they aren't you braindead monkey

>>11279392
You're on a board for books. Try reading some.

>>11279408

The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple. You lot seem to hold fundamentally flawed stances and proceed to back them up frivolous word play. Really makes one think.

>>11279381
Eugene de Blaas. Objectively beautiful display of actual talent. Idealist, radiates warm and positive emotions. Structured scene that makes sense to the average person. Controlled use of color.

>>11279065

>Post-modern art/literature is creativity without beauty or truth.

>Post-modern art/literature is creativity without talent.


I shortened that up for you OP. You're welcome.

>>11279420
>The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple.
How do you redditors even come up with this garbage? Did you hear it in a Neil degrasse Tyson video?

>>11279436
I disagree I think post-modern art lacks only one thing that has pre-existed otherwise in all other ages, "sincerity of emotion".

>>11279442

Nah; Einstein.

Anything can be creative, but that doesn't mean it's good
a serial killer who makes murder murals is creative but that doesn't mean his murals have any artistic value

>>11279446

Ain't that the truth. My girlfriend sister does performance art in NYC and it is the most pretentious "look at me!" garbage I've ever witnessed. She has daddy issue though, a common theme among those types, so while abhorrent I do understand it.

>>11279379
i thought this was dfw from that interview when i was scrolling down

>>11279065
True, but every rule has a exception.

Yea, its me.

>>11279379
the art is different from the philosophy. You want to hate on Foucault fine, but don't shit on some postmodernist painter

>>11279430
>>11279402
Klimt: raw emotional intensity, genius - like usage of gold and brilliant colors mimicking the early orthodox iconography thuz establishing a link with a ages old tradition and adding meaning to the composition, each element of the composition works in tandem with the other.
de Blaas: blando colors, bad sense of colour palette, bad sense of space, fake poses, fake rurality, fake facial expressions, mediocre realism, useless, unimportant.

>>11279420
Postmodernism is not the cultural dominant of a wholly new social order but only the reflex and the concomitant of yet another systemic modification of capitalism itself. Postmodernism desperately attempt to make sense of this systemic modification but in a way that refuses traditional forms of understanding (narrative, history, etc.). Hence "the waning of historicity." If can't grasp any of this then you should go back to whatever shithole you crawled out of.

>>11279486
No. The kitsch inherent to postmodern art is part of the same "waning of historicity" process.

>>11279503
>>11279379

>>11279503

>he thinks economic models dictate artistic period shifts

Anon, did you forget to takes your meds?

>>11279461

Kids In The Hall is based.

>>11279503
>historicity
>not historicityessnessicity
Fucking pseud.

>>11279381
>Yes.
Ahahaha, yes, sure, a random shitposter on 4chan sure seems convincing when he off-handedly discards the conclusions of a ton of scholars and philosophers. Not even JBP denies the existence of pomo.
>They dont use it apparently.
A fair number does but you can't remember when was the last time you last visited an art gallery, so you're probably not very much up to date with the art that you're trying to critique.
The ones that don't use it might simply find other styles of visual expression more adequate for what they're trying to do. As weird as it sounds, not everyone has the exact same taste and preferences as you, and as an adult you should accept that.
>Displays of artistic skill is one way to determine who is a better artist...
The point of art isn't to determine who is a better artist...
>Lmao you are really saying that those piles of vomit are more beautiful than literally any classical astist? If you're willing to lie to yourself like this how can we have a discussion.
epic b8 m8
Also, we were talking about the artists who care about beauty, and these do, whether you or me personally find them pretty or not.

>>11279436
>Borges, Eco and Pynchon have no talent
Don't cut yourself on that edge

>>11279402
lmao sure, pick up a pencil and draw something similar

>>11279430
My cock in your mom's pussy radiates warm and positive emotions too. Do you hear her gasping and moaning in from all the positivity? And it is also structured so it will make sense to every idiot, even to you. My throbbing dick is thrusting in and out of your mother's wet thick cunt, I'm sure you understand that.

>>11279528
Agreed.
A good one for our resident economic determinist:
https://youtu.be/ICXdA0sFAkc

>>11279542
getting cock into your mom requires 0 talent though

>>11279065
Nope, fuck off.

>>11279566

Ay mate, I guess that makes us cock brothers.
I bang that old dried up shrew every Friday.
Dirty, dirty girl that one.

>>11279576

Your argument prowess is unmatched anon.
I concede! Just please don't..*gulp*...tell me to fuck off again. My intellect just wouldn't be able to handle that kind of rejection from a clearly superior intellect.

>>11279519
>fracturing the Subject and turning the individual into a faceless laboring unit didn't have any effect on culture

if you say so, cappie

>>11279829


>turning the individual into a faceless laboring unit

Those that welcome slavery; deserve it. They wouldn't produce anything of value even if given the chance. They are garbage and should burn.

>>11279866

>postmodern
>create
Postmodernism cannot be creative by definition, it takes the content that already exists, cuts it out from any possible context or future development and then splatters it around randomly.

>>11279872

People below 120 IQ LITERALLY are not humans. 95% of the population are capable apes; mirroring the tenets of humanity previously established by 120+ IQ humans. They hold us back. They are kindling for the fire.

Burn, burn, burn.

>>11279873

That still lives within the realm of creativity. It just lacks genuine emotionality, talent, or utility.

>>11279492
>like usage of gold and brilliant colors mimicking the early orthodox iconography thuz establishing a link with a ages old tradition and adding meaning to the composition

I am done. You literally just described THE defining feature of classical art. And thus you proved that modern art is empty standing on its own. Incredible.

>blando colors, bad sense of colour palette, bad sense of space, fake poses, fake rurality, fake facial expressions, mediocre realism, useless, unimportant.

solid b8

What's postmodernism?

>>11280424
Incredulity towards meta-narratives

>>11279420
just read Jameson

>>11280030
>The defining feature of classical art is to imitate orthodox iconography
AHAHAHAHAH what the fuck am I reading
>solid b8
No I am being 100% serious you bugman, the colors are all over the fucking place and the expressions and the poses are plastic and lifeless, compare it with the birth of Venus and you'll see the difference you cretin

>>11280623
>>11280030
on a second look the last one you posted really looks like a fucking Kinkade painting, really the artistic equivalent of a Mariah Carey love song

>>11279065
it would actually be untruthful to reproduce historical aesthetic modes (like neoclassicism, in your examples) in the 21st century, without succumbing to a populist vulgarity. what a lot of postmodern art does is appropriate historical motifs in the form of pastiche (as opposed to satire, a pastiche is merely a 'blank' quotation). this is what >>11279503 means when he refers to a waning of historicity (a phrase taken from Fredric Jameson's critique of postmodernism, which you should read if you want to understand any of this). modern art was characterized by the endless 'new', or, for Greenberg, the dialectical movement towards a medium's essence (i.e. the goal of the modern painting was to strip away all that was formally unnecessary — a movement from Cezanne to the abstract expressionists of the 50s). postmodern art, on the other hand, is characterized by a proliferation of styles lacking this sort of historicity or teleology.

>>11279459
Fuck "good". There hasn't been a single "good" thing done in the name of "good" in history.

>>11280720

>>11279295
agreed. Is this the scribbling of an edgy middle schooler?

>>11279295
>>11280850
its translated lol

>>11279065
It's truth without beauty or creativity.

>>11279210
Are you from the 17th century? There is a great deal of truth to the immediate, impulsive expression of children as yet unhindered by convention. It is why artists from the 20th century specifically took inspiration from children -- to recapture that freedom of thought. That's where a lot of the mastery is now. It's painting 'like a child', but obviously not to the same extent as childlike drawing as a child because it is wholly unremarkable and shows very little motor control or intention.

>>11281837

expand

>>11279430
Why couldn't this idiot paint proper musculature or dynamic poses or varied emotion? This is bourgeois propaganda.

>>11279065
>how ardently someone's technique mirrors what is presented before the artist is the sole metric of beauty or truth
Are we then going to get a bunch of people posting that tired bourgeois John William Waterhouse?

>>11280030
Are you saying brilliant colours are the defining feature of classical art? It's actually line, not colour.

>>11281868

>i paint like a child (but am an adult)
>this makes me a master (because I lack the inherit skill, discipline, or creativity to create or emote anything greater than the musings of a prepubescent mind)
>I'm proud of my failings (and shit all over artists that have all the traits of genius I will never have)

Absolutely disgusting.

>>11281903
You'd think people who value mechanical reproduction of visual appearances would put a lot more stock in still lives, for example.

>>11279381
>Yes.
E

>>11281930
Are you only reading posts in isolation or are you a different anon?

>>11281950

isolation
are you going to answer me bitch boy?

>>11279238
>>11279241
considering how vague and polysemic that term is, we should be exactly 0% surprised that PoMo discussion threads full of arguing semantics and failing to define anything have been on /lit/ since either 2013 or even its very conception.

I mean, well, DFW, Scruton and plenty others were quite/somewhat popular on /lit/ way before Peterson ever got quoted here in any context other than psychiatry

>>11279332
>The purpose of art isn't to be impressive, you faggot
look at this guy

>>11282108

relevant to this conversation
>pic related

>>11279873
true

>art contains truth

I find the classical vs modernist/postmodernist approach to art and music to be so amusingly opposite.

So to classical morons like OP, art that realistically depicts an idealized image found in reality contains "beauty" and "truth". one presumes an abstract Kandisnky or Pollack which is abstract and distilled does not. However, classical music exalts the sounds of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc. Now I've heard many inspiring speeches, steam engines, morning birds, crashing waves, chirping crickets, etc and none of them sound a damn thing like Mozart. Mozart appealed to some abstract, distilled sonic form of "beauty" and "truth". So for the classicist, abstraction in music = good, abstraction in painting =bad. Meanwhile the postmodern musical tradition moved into field recordings which quite literally is recordings of reality. This also would irritate the classicist so we have the converse that realism in music = bad, realism in painting =good. What could be the philosophical justification for this that ties to any consistent and universal sense of beauty and truth?

>>11282131
>classical music = metaphor
>field recording = synecdoche

>>11279210
fuck / marry / kill /send off to a colony

GO !

>>11282131

>Now I've heard many inspiring speeches, steam engines, morning birds, crashing waves, chirping crickets, etc and none of them sound a damn thing like Mozart.

Perhaps not to you anon. However, to those who pull from the ether, the sounds you describe are endlessly persistent and perfect symphonies that they fervently attempt to capture and translate for those who do not hear the endless music. Those such as yourself.

>>11282131
Mozart's music artistically is far closer to bird singing, cricket chirping, wave crashing, etc., than a modern "field recording" of these things. You know why? Because just as birds are making sounds that are naturally pleasing to them, and so are crickets, and waves are doing what they do by nature - so Mozart makes music that is naturally pleasing to men. Men naturally hum/whistle tunes and Mozart essentially takes that natural human capacity to its highest level.
Modern field recordings, on the other hand, are just mummified corpses of natural sounds and so fall far shorter in imitating the natural rhythms and beauty of nature than Mozart's music.

Look at a Raphael painting. Do you know why it is better than a hyper-realist painting or a photograph? Because he includes what is essential to the image and removes what is inessential in order reveal the essence of the object while still maintaining its likeness. Whereas an abstract painting like Kandinsky will try to paint the essence of thing while being totally removed from its likeness/appearance.

>>11282217
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h9Yj5DE7Iw

>>11282131
So a modern field recording is actually a far more "abstract" piece of music than a Mozart symphony. To take a recording of random natural sounds and present it as "music" is indeed very abstract. Most people would simply not even recognise it as music. Whereas as soon as people hear Mozart they know that what they're listening to is something made to be listened to and appreciated as music.

>>11282210
is this not what abstract painting is? Besides, modern classical pieces such as Messiaen's "Catalogue d'oiseaux" translates the song of birds onto the piano, but doing so that is often repetitively atonal and evocative in ways that a classicist would not approve of. Is the classicist missing the beautiful translation? I find both Mozart and post-modern music to evoke deep emotion and beauty, but I am not the one who is rejecting either, I am not the classicist.

>>11282217
>Modern field recordings, on the other hand, are just mummified corpses of natural sounds and so fall far shorter in imitating the natural rhythms and beauty of nature than Mozart's music.
I mean I agree with this.

>Men naturally hum/whistle tunes and Mozart essentially takes that natural human capacity to its highest level.
And child and men naturally also draw abstractions and simplifications, in addition to realism

>Because he includes what is essential to the image and removes what is inessential in order reveal the essence of the object while still maintaining its likeness.

Sure Raphael is great. But I appreciate Raphael for what he is doing. What I am arguing is that the rejection of abstraction in painting as if it lacks beauty is to lack any self-awareness of how beauty can be transmitted differently.

>Whereas an abstract painting like Kandinsky will try to paint the essence of thing while being totally removed from its likeness/appearance.
And what is wrong with that?

>>11282217
Good, reasoned argument

>>11282237
Guy who is posting while having no idea what he even thinks about the topic and who makes no sense overall, see shitposting

>>11282240
>to lack any self-awareness of how beauty can be transmitted differently

Why does this have to be lack of 'self-awareness' specifically? Why can't it just be the case that someone doens't see the same beauty in non-representational art?

>>11282255
>Why does this have to be lack of 'self-awareness' specifically?
self-awareness was a pretty bad word choice from me. I should have said "humility to see how beauty can be transmitted differently to different people"

>Why can't it just be the case that someone doens't see the same beauty in non-representational art?
That is totally fine and true. What is not true is to say non-representational art lacks any beauty or truth (which in classical terms are "universal" qualities, obviously the postmodern notions of these are not universal) because one does not personally grasp it or sense it.

>>11279430
>>11279210
This kitchy horseshit is exactly what witless twenty-somethings have in mind when they criticize "postmodern/modern art" and claim they prefer "classical." This proto-Rockwell garbage to them is indistinguishable from Martin, Goya, Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Michelangelo, let alone the actual works of antiquity. It all falls under the same header: what came before. Before when? They don't know. They think the Thinker is from the Roman period. They aren't familiar with art, their opinion hasn't been formed by a sustained interest in art. How would they sustain it? They don't have aesthetic views or experiences. If faced with a great work of art that demonstrates mastery in a way immediately appreciable to them, they'll stand in front of it and stare with a sort of slack expression, as if in immersion they've lost all self-consciousness, so swept up in the work they themselves become neutral. They act this out while working up some vague feeling of reverence for the old masters. This feeling is the real purpose behind their act, if nearby such a work they place themselves in front of it out of obligation to their motive of experiencing a connection to great forebears. If forced to pass by that work, they anxiously feel the need to remark on it, they must make it known they're not indifferent. Standing in front of the work, they'll get bored in a few seconds and know it, but still they'll stand there, hoping whoever is with them will say, alright, let's go, so they can quietly and absent-mindedly begin to step away while keeping an eye on whatever replica they're staring at, their head turning, stuck to the sight, their gaze can't be torn from the plaster bust.

>>11282287
Something truer than this I have yet to read

>>11281974
Ironically your taste reads like that of an impulsive child. No reasoning, just some ahistorical, alien, unconscious metaphysics that for some reason or other prizes some things you call 'skill', 'discipline', etc. -- whatever these mean to you is not clear, but the way you use these words it cannot accommodate any other definition of the words than that which is regulated by and within your strange economy of meaning and without external reference -- because you feel smart when pretty pictures make you dumb enough to stare at them for long periods of time. Your idea of aesthetics isn't even backwards because that would imply some sense of continuity.

>>11281884
contract

So, art lovers, what books should I read to cultivate an aesthetic sense, and not fall for the trap of bourgeois sensitivities?

>>11282346
Reading books about aesthetics is a bourgeois activity

>>11282346
Start with the Greeks

>>11282362

I have no idea what "butt stuff" has to do with his question, anon.

>>11282217
this is the only thing can mentionable, and even this is not that good

>>11282346
The History of Art - Gombrich

>>11282355
no, reading any books is bourgeois activity

>live in an ugly society
>expect beautiful art
It won't arise naturally in the society we live in, you have to create it. Most don't understand and aren't willing to put in the effort though.

>>11282567
Can you deconstruct this idea? Has a society ever existed that is not caracterised by its ugliness?

>>11279065
wrong

>>11282346
Adorno's Aesthetic Theory

>>11279065
define beauty

>>11279065
>generalizations

Epic

>>11279065
Define truth.

>>11282346
Dont believe any of the lies written by art historians and just go see all kinds of musea.

>>11279065

I'm going to out-autism you.

1: Define postmodernism

2: Name five (5) postmodern artists, and five (5) postmodern authors

3: Define beauty

4: Define truth

>>11282226
>i-its transcendent....y'know?
Same old pseud arguments we've been hearing for years.

NEXT!

>>11282217
>Because just as birds are making sounds that are naturally pleasing to them
It's instinct, we have no way of knowing if it's pleasurable to them.

>>11279430

Bland, it conveys nothing.

>>11279143
wow... we truly live in a society...

>>11282287

BASED

>>11282287
I agree with you, but I do feel that technical ability has been emphasized much less in contemporary art. You can still find it of course, but I so think that less the overall community artistic landscape being less concerned with fundamentals has led it to suffer somewhat.

>>11280720
embarrassingly cringey my man

>>11279266
this

>>11279124
that was made by a Christian, and the fact that it's your go to example of bad art proves you are a dilettante poltard/rightwingcuck with no idea of what the symbol of the cross or art means

>>11282287
finally somebody eloquent enough to shit on the current 4chan trends

>>11285436

t. Jew

>>11280850
>not liking Calvino
what has happened to you, /lit/?

>>11280771
>>11284331
When has anyone who spoke about doing things in the name of "good" actually done as such? Guys like Rousseau are always conniving shitheads.

>>11285464
Ever wondered why would Christians pick a torture device as their symbol? Why would they rally behind something so brutal and demeaning?

submerging in piss is nothing compared to what the cross was actually used for

>>11282217
>Whereas an abstract painting like Kandinsky will try to paint the essence of thing while being totally removed from its likeness/appearance.
>Kandinsky
>Referring to anything real in the world
>Not pure spiritual interpersonal objectivity
What the fuck am I reading

>>11279065

until about 1950 and then it lost the creativity part as well

>>11279065
ww1 killed beauty and god. mr wash your penis thinks it only killed beauty but thats not true.

>>11285436
>uses 40 words to say "edgy excrement pictures are just too cool for pseuds i guess xDD"

Yep, we've got a modern art critic here

>>11282346
Arthur Danto
Kandinsky's books

>>11279210
you better be trolling

>>11285565
being offended by it shows your ignorance, and not even of art but of religion

>>11283865
absolute faggot imp

>>11285574
no, this is what most young people from pol actually believe

>>11279430
fucking garbage, they look like fire emblem shadow dragon sprites

where's the pretty pictures? this is not art

My greatest wish is for the term postmodernism to not be used anymore and for it to be replaced by something that arises out of a more attentive, curious and smart analysis of contemporary art and theory

>>11285620
how about "deskilled"

>muh mimesis

>>11282226
>5 minute video on Essence, Existence AND Logos
can't wait

>muh beauty

>muh classic art

>>11285626
or order-hating sodomites far removed from logos, criticising for the sake of deconstruction, spite and self-definition.

>muh harmony

>>11285436
yes, a “””””christian”””””

>>11285626
Doesn't encompass the whole, prejudiced, boring
Something else

>>11285631
>>11285636
>>11285642
>>11285655
stop it with the "high-brow" kitsch

>muh geometrical proportions
>muh order

>>11285655
>>11285636
>>11285642

>>11279430

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Socrates#/media/File:David_-_The_Death_of_Socrates.jpg

Actual classic art

>>11285677

>muh reality

>>11285687
>>11285677
>>11285671
pic related: the greatest painting of all time

>>11285678
>when you too woke off that lean

>muh reality [2]

>>11285597
*snap*

>muh sublime

>>11285671
what the hell is this big something on the left? never knew what it actually is. Reminds me of a big fire or weird hair wtf

>>11285715
>>11285704
>>11285691
what is the point of these posts?

>>11285704
trying too hard
>>11285693
anon...
>>11285687
lol
>>11285671
banal but good taste
>>11285691
good taste
>>11285705
fuck off faggot

>>11285671
>>11285691
>>11285693
>>11285704
>>11285715

>>11285718
It's a tree, a pine if I remember correctly
>>11285693
m8

>>11285718
cypress tree, looks like somebody is unfamiliar with basic art

>>11285730
>pine

>>11285721
A picture is worth a thousand words, anon

>>11285741

>>11285741
Not really, especially not in this case and context

>>11285734
yeah iam. dont know anything about it. still looks weird, but i see the tree now

>>11285722
trying too hard

>>11285746
there are none so deaf as those who will refuse to hear, anon

>>11285761

>>11285767
keep me posted anon

>>11285761
Kill yourself

>>11285803
wew, why so angry?

>>11282303
> isn’t even backwards.
hah

>muh realism

>>11285751
you don’t know what that means, stop being so fucking sensitive that i don’t like all your pretentious surrealist shit. Bataille annihilated the whole school

>>11285962
>Not liking Dr Chirico
Your loss
>>11285947
Based

>>11282131
>realistically depicts an idealized
>realistic
>idealized

That's the problem with your pseud ramblings, fren. A portrait artist or landscape painter whose *sole concern is realistic depiction of the subject* is essentially doing the job of a camera. All of the greats do more than that. Pollack and his ilk created trash as an in-joke and made a fortune off it by accident, being imitated by generations of morons such as yourself over whose heads the joke flew entirely. In fact the sole purpose of their dreck was to "subvert" convention—and now their work is the convention, so if any subversive post-modernists were reborn today, they would probably be classicists because nothing is less conventional in the Age of the Pseud

>>11285947
Umm who is that guy (an art historian? looks familiar) and from what movie are the stills from?

>>11286104
>Can't even spell Pollock right
M8

>>11286273
It's Orson Wells, a renowned theatrical director.

>>11282287
bless you based anon, you have given me hope in this website.

>>11286273
He's Degas' son.

>>11279065

>>11286897
>Trusting a Jesuit with art history

>>11285962
>you don’t know what that means
waaaaay too hard

>>11279430

> if Readers Digest were a painting

>>11286897
More like "The Rape Masters."

>>11286381

I'm absolutely sure he'd still hold the same opinions after seeing the disenfranchisement of creativity and utter decay we've witnessed across the physical arts since his passing.

Or do you not think that Orson Wells would approve of blank white canvases and feminist artists painting with their menstrual blood and feces?

>>11288011
lol 18 year old

>>11289355
t. 20 year old

>>11286381
>It's Orson Wells
It's Alfred Hitchcock, the most overrated director of all time. And unlike Hitchcock, Wells was actually talented.

>>11289373
it doesn’t work like that newfag you made a mess go back to your discord chat and youtube videos, maybe today you’ll get to lose your virginity who knows its summer! that’s why you’re here in the first place

>you will never paint big eyed victorian qts dressed in a classical setting

why live desu

>muh structuralism
>muh post-colonial theory
>muh critical theory
>muh feminist theory
>muh personal expression
>muh word games

We equally obsessed with beauty of human body as greeks were.

Discuss.

>>11285947
That guy is babbling nonsense. What even is "perfect technique"? I agree that imitating nature is the death of art, but that has nothing to do with technical skill either way.

>>11289425
this image just made me middle class

>>11279503
this is true, but you seem to be pulling your punch

the implications of this are all-encompassing. This is pure insanity institutionalized and commended. It spells living death for us all. If we don't take up arms we will have our humanity totally removed and our bodies will be integrated into a terrible machine.

>>11290297

Don't you have another essay to write on Lacanian castration in contemporary american cinema?

>>11285947
100% accurate
>>11290100
t. brainlet, waste of digits

>>11282287
Damn, new OC

>>11279065
>>11279065
>it’s a faggot posts fin de siècle art while complaining about muuuh nihilist degenerate postmodernism episode

>>11282287
based.. I’ve been trying to wreck these neo-proletarian beasts too...

>>11290619
What is it with you fags thinking one can either be a modernist or a classicist, forgetting for the moment that naturalism doesn't classify something as classical

>>11289388
*snap*

>>11289342
>we've witnessed

You dumb nigger blank canvases and gross poopies aren't representative of contemporary art, you haven't witnessed shit except in /pol/-tier modern art hate threads

>>11279178
no, YOU don't.

swish.

>>11285704

I love chirico but i absolutely hate guys like yves tanguy. Chiricos figures seem very natural and not totally devoid of humanity, many other surrealists are like kafka turned up to 11.

>>11290037
That isn't beauty it's an insult to sexuality.

>>11293821
okay homo

>>11293837

>>11279065
The underage hottie in Gravity's Rainbow was a real hottie.

>not a single contemporary work was posted in this thread
Really makes you think

>>11279398
Based

>>11279065
Do video games count as postmodern art?

>>11294319
here it is

>>11294601

This work and i say this as someone who's doing art, not that it makes my opinion more valid, is cancerous. I know this artist and while his technical skills are sufficient enough, these realism mongers lack the grace and beauty that anyone from the renaissance had or the strength and mastery that neoclassicism had. We've come full circle with post modernism in that people are going back to this realistic shmuck and it's a joke. The ideas behind this kind of art can't even resonate anymore with a modern audience aside from oh wow xd beautiful! Striving for photorealistic representations which we see today make the art a bastardization of what is possible.

>>11294601
>when you make the actual baroque look like restrained classicism in comparison

>>11285436
>people who don't agree with my objective knowledge about how art is arbitrary are nazis
Are you bating or just stupid?

>>11279231
What makes this neo-classical and not romantic?

>>11279065

>post-modern art/literature is incredulity at the meta narrative

You are confused and must read and lurk more senpai

>>11279398
Kek

>>11280030
>>11279430
>>11279065
Now if only he drew white people instead of these frizzy headed ethnics

>>11294319

Here's a painting I did of my mom I'll contribute to post modern art

>>11285436
yeah, the more I think about this one the more I agree with that reasoning. Christ exists to absorb the world's sins, represented here by piss. It's not exactly art, and it was probably jumped on by jews who didn't get the point, but it's interesting nonetheless.

>>11285436
Rothko is a much better example of bad modern art. If this isn't money laundering, then it's just mass stupidity.

>>11298244
Rothko is genuinely great if you see his paintings irl.

>>11295834
Well yeah Ferri has no delusion of painting like an actual Caravaggio, that's not his goal. He's read his Kandinsky do he doesn't believe that he is painting "like the Masters", he is no under such delusion. Rather, he is adaptanting some tools of classical painting to his worldview, you can see this in how he paints women and overall disposes the figures in space. I like his work a lot and I think he gets misunderstood, and I say this as someone who generally finds the neoclassicists in the way of Gerome and Bouguereau very distasteful.

>>11294599
Kill yourself

>>11298244
ever seen a rhotko in person?

>>11298312

I never said he was a bad painter, but whether people or aware of it or not there is a battle going on in painting right now (i think) aesthetically for the future of painting. It's something that's never stopped it always keeps going and I just find a sad falseness in their perfect depictions of humanity, their being the new classical school/atelier people.

/lit/ has more knowledgeable people then /ic/ but what it feels like, is most of the painters who were born post ww2 or either dead or too old to matter anymore and all your rothkos and rauschenbergs are long gone but in their births and deaths they single handedly i think broke off the connection every artist always had to the past. Really abex painters did this more efficiently then even picasso and cezanne and the german expressionists or De Stijl. Which is why i feel there's this falseness pervading even the most beautiful art, painters don't even understand what art is anymore or what it should be. The chain was completely broken, the internet and globalization didn't help either.

>>11296650
It's too late to be either neoclassicism or romanticism. It's just plain late 19th c academicism.

>>11299012
>there is a battle going on in painting right now (i think) aesthetically for the future of painting

I'm pretty such I think I can solve this issue. I'm confident that people perceive the world in different ways and that these differing notions of beauty and aesthetic value arise out these differences of perception.

>>11299012
I understand what you mean, but I don't think there's this falseness that you speak of in his paintings. Whereas I can perceive this falseness in someone like for example Bouguereau in him I just don't, and I usually got 0 tolerance for that type of soulless imitation. After all he's an Italian so he has first hand contact with older art. That being said, I don't feel this argument applies to him because if you look at how he paints he very clearly is a modern painter, because he has his style and everything, he's just adapting older techniques to his own sensibilities, he isn't trying to paint like a renaissance painter.
>>11299053
woah...

>>11299012
I'm not the person you're talking to but I feel I should (not so?) helpfully clarify some of your post to at least take apart the seemingly monolithic idea of modern art.

Painting is a kind of no-count medium right now, and I am doubtful it will make any sort of comeback let alone be the site of a war over aesthetics. Apart from the anomaly that was Neo-Expressionism in the 80s, the course of art had exhausted painting by the 60s. This is where I have to separate Rothko and Rauschenberg, as the latter was more of an artistic reaction against the former; one can almost make the distinction of Raushenberg's postmodernism to Rothko's modernism. 'Modernism' at the time was Greenberg's critical baby that was at once the continuation of and the break with history. The 'break' occurred after the war when the art world became centred on New York specifically, shifting from European modernism. But, in his canon, AbEx was the culmination of the entire history of painting, stripped finally of any delusions, essentialised, and only ever concerned with its constituent materials. To him, this exclusive modernism had begun with Cezanne and continued through Picasso to Pollock and the rest. But of note this canon did not include the likes of Duchamp, for example. The influence of Duchamp occurred later, by artists like Rauschenberg, against the academic Greenbergian formalism, and against the historicised labelling favoured by critics where an artist is only ever good if he builds on the developments of another artist. I think it is at this point where there is a decisive 'break' when -- maybe Greenberg is right that AbEx is the ultimate painting -- artists abandoned painting wholesale. From the 70s onwards there is really no suitably 'unified' movement or even a preferable medium.

I agree though that artists don't understand what art is or should be anymore. I think a few postmodernists got it, or more specifically those artists on the cusp of modernism and postmodernism. Conceptualism, appropriation, etc., that kind of continue that avant-garde teleology and are aware of its social and cultural conditions.

Also I guess ironically that postmodernism allows artists, art historians, etc., almost unlimited access to past art and theory and can reassess or find inspiration in art outside of the modernist canon.

>>11298348

Not the anon you're asking, but while I do concede that massive walls of color are stimulating to the senses (especially in person); Rothko and his paintings were artificially given status to serve as money laundering assets (at least the beginning of his career, now they sell because people want the status of owning a Rothko)

>>11279587
>gulp
Swallowing much, David?

>>11299012
this transcends /lit/, good

>>11299353
Why are you talking about money?

>>11285480
Tv arrived

>>11289385
I'm sure he is Wells

>>11299053

Ya i get what you're saying, but there's always a handful of artists who end up defining the whole landscape of art and what art means in our lifetime. If as an artist you are not one of them or not striving to surpass them or put yourself beside them, then you're shit out of luck. If you're not an artist you probably won't care.

>>11299070

Bouguereau it can be argued practiced a very sterilized version of what ingres and the others started, but eliminated almost any hint of national flavor or politics from his works, or any kind of moral teachings in favor of his ideal of academic beauty, mostly females/children of the most PURE and virgin category. But even while the impressionists hated him and for good reason his paintings are near flawless, there's maybe a handful of painters today who could even match his prowess. One of his first major paintings equality before death (painted when he was 23) and dante and virgil are stunning. I think he was really a victim of his time period and academic obsession which we've seen all throughout history.

I just have an itch to pick with these painters as i see what they're doing as an artistic dead end. And i feel personally, it could just be insecurity that there is a smugness that comes with having studied 4 years at the best Florence atelier or wherever they go. Painters are free to paint whatever they please but the moment you start showing in galleries and so on you're admitting you want to be apart of art history somehow no matter how small it is.

>>11299117

Ya you're a lot more knowledgeable then me and i appreciate this post, It can be hard to put all the pieces together, I think you're spot on of course, and it's actually sad because i feel as an artist that art has been rendered effectively near worthless. With the death of bourgeois class and really a leading intellectual society and the rise of the every day man and technology and so on, society no longer needs to sit and ponder on the next artistic movements or art in general. One of its biggest influences it had was political, well that's gone, who needs napoleon riding a horse when we can have 300 million people in a nation reached with a few ads on facebook or TV. The personal portrait, also effectively gone outside of the rich of rich or nouevue rich who think it'd be fashionable to have a hip pop artist do a portrait of them. I can go on and on but i mostly mean the traditional arts, lit is feeling this shockwave as well but its less effected i think. It's not so much that society has dumbed down as it is society has opened up and every single person is allowed to have a voice and an opinion that can possibly influence a lot of people. The worst part is your average artist thinks less and less about all these things then ever. Your ai wei wei types are the whose who of art now.

I'll shill one of my art pieces, i still have a long way to go though, writing is something that got me into art in the first place.

post-modern art just refuses to define its terms.
they it things like terms exist.
but are essentially empty vessels for us to fill them up with shit.

its why so many classical shits are so hung up on definitions.


though technique seems to have gone by the way side by many who dawn the mantle of post modernity.

just because its up to the reader now to interpret your abstract mess, doesn't mean you should be lazy about creating art.


interestingly enough post modern art started coming about when the photograph was taking off.
and with new medium arising , like video games and movies we see a similar respect in what we regard as high art for them.

no doubt any kino/ high cinema is more akin to post modern art than any classical painting.

post-modern art is godless art.

>>11280659
One of the only good posts in this thread. Thanks, anon.

>>11298214
That is bad and not good

>>11282675
But it's shit, anon...

>>11282346
Picture of Dorian Gray

>>11299464
>With the death of bourgeois class and really a leading intellectual society and the rise of the every day man and technology and so on, society no longer needs to sit and ponder on the next artistic movements or art in general. One of its biggest influences it had was political, well that's gone, who needs napoleon riding a horse when we can have 300 million people in a nation reached with a few ads on facebook or TV.
The intellectual class and the bourgeois still exist, but have relocated to mass media, the importance of which you correctly note because technological reproduction, the emergence of the global village, and the flourishing of democracy through the 20th century have made it possible for every man to become his own island, and for every island to have its own constitution. Who's writing it, though? Not the king, that's for sure; it's the entertainers and marketers, the offspring of the bourgeois class and the intellectuals, respectively. When you delineate each individual from the public, you castrate the public's potential to organise meaningfully to do, well, absolutely anything useful, including the creation of a new artistic school. The painting of Napoleon would have been like a fetish item before anyone could go type 'Napoleon on horse' into Google. Now, it's a little memento mori of romanticism since we decided art the consecrates the conquering of nations is best left to the back reaches of the gallery. Which is to say, the mausoleum of decomposing ideas.

And what came to replace it? You gave the answer in your post. I attached an image of Ai Weiwei's celebrated work for the benefit of other anons. It wasn't the muse or the Gods who spoke to him. It was the fucking Guardian newspaper. Art is still political, but only if it represents the correct ideas. Someone like Weiwei can collect his check and save the world in one fell swoop with this ersatz, alienated representation of human suffering. Good for him.

Btw I like your style, reminds me of Sidney Nolan, seductive but also tongue in cheek

>be mainly /ic/
>i just like painting waifus in-between books
>all these anons and their preconceived notions of what art ought to be, completely disregarding the philosophers they claim to love
welp, another day on /lit/

>>11298340
It's a valid question and it's disgraceful that it doesn't get any serious attention. Why is something on the cusp of virtual reality never analyzed by art historians? Why is that "creativity without beauty or truth"?

>>11294599
>>11300136
fuck off nigger

>>11300206
How dare someone with an interest in discussion post civilly here.

I've been almost exclusively listening to Wagner recently and I feel like an elitist, ridiculous, lagging boomer. Should I feel like this?

>>11285436
He made a point and your answer to is was to straight out prove it. Nicely done.

The unmade bed, the toilet, shit in a can, etc. None of these have either beauty or truth embedded in them. Even a fucking black and white canvas, or a randomly coloured canvas sells for millions, yet holds no real value.

>value is in the eye of the beholder such as beauty and quality
No, should that be true there would be no models, top 20% of men and women.

The postmodern thinking is based on equality, and in equality everything can be art.

>>11282287
You go out to museums with the wrong people, obviously. Some perceive art differently, meaning some do not care at all. As most travel nowadays for novelty, seeing an actual piece of mastery is nothing but, a novelty. Thus in today's half-retarded environment you cannot hold these people to the degree you wish. While you might appreciate how a Chinese painter made a marvelous piece of art a thousand years ago, checking every detail, finding a little man on a mountain or a cormorant amid the trees, the other person just passes them by, seeing but not actually looking. They have not learned to look, the just see.

>he doesn’t understand that art and literature after the classical era uses both beauty and the grotesque

>>11300639
midwit: the post

>>11300639
In equality, nothing is art, because art is the supreme.

>>11285947
sauce please

please

>>11279210
>Postmodern/modern (same thing)

>>11279143
>shitting on Bouguereau
There is nothing more immeditely indicative of complete and utter plebhood than this. Every person who does this is a resentful dumbass who can't even hold a paintbrush

>>11300745
ok

>>11282287
rekt

>>11282287
what's your beef with Rockwell

>>11279179
how about you help me out and enlighten dee....

>>11300727
>>11286273
google helped, the movie is Jean Renoir Parle de Son Art.

cheers mates

>>11300639
so if you walked by that photograph in a gallery, before walking up to the placard, would you literally think, "hmmm is this a jar of piss?" have you actually seen the work in question? maybe this is why people get so worked up about minimalism, they think those white squares are extreme close ups of bedsheets or something