/lit/ - Literature

>>12400315
And from the same gallery in Tate Britain: Carnation, Lily, Lily, Rose, by John Singer Sargent (1885–6).

I love that gallery.

Caillebot

I was at the centre pompidou last friday and never have I felt as dreadful in a museum. I admit the intellectual merits of some of the pieces but they never left any lasting impression on me, as an american art hoe said - one of the many that haunt the museum - passing by a weird portrait she glanced at for a total of 10 seconds, it's "pretty cool" and nothing more.
Does contemporary art do something to you? Maybe I missed something, maybe it's in its nature to not ellicit any kind of emotion (except rejection and I say that unironically)

most of these seem to be merely pornographic

Is this a thread to post architecture too?

>>12400599
:B

Do you guys have favorite museums? Any places one has to see in his life? Why?

>>12400315
This one is by Gustave Doré, the same guy that made the pic from the sticky

Btw guys, there are always multiple art threads in /wg/, it's a great board even though it's not terribly popular. Also, most pics there are wallpaper size and very high quality, so I'd recommend anyone who likes these threads to check /wg/

>>12400612
>Corbusier
>architecture

>>12400334
Brilliant painting imo

I often have dreams about walking around infinite art museums with nobody in them. I kind if want to make a walking simulator game about these dreams

>>12400315
You need to add something more than simply keeping an /art/ thread to keep this /lit/ relevant, since what is the point of kids just spamming the most recent paintings they found on Wikipedia.

>>12401037

>>12401037
>>12401052

which one is the better painting?

>>12401062
The second

>>12400612
Yes

>>12401074
why do you think that? may i ask

>>12400867
It's fun and comfy and people discover art they might not have otherwise seen. And those so inclined can jerk it to the nudes.

>>12401089
The figures in the second are more rounded and fleshier. Plus, I like the gradient from left to right, how its practically black near the edge and pushes towards the light in the background, right below the angels.

>>12401098
>Jerk it to the nudes
Nothing more patrician than jacking off to 19th century French nudes

>tfw no weaboo aunt to talk about chinese cartoons with

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

>>12401308
Thank god there isn't because its the biggest waste of time imaginable.

>>12401244
thanks

>>12401098
ok. By that argument m*ds should delete this thread.

>>12401337
Opinions on Dali? I went to a exhibition recently and it was not what i was expecting. Barely any clocks to be seen.

>>12400315
Post dogs begging for food

Nice thread.

Probably my favorite contemporary piece of art

>>12401541
What the fuck is happening there?

>>12401553
No idea, but the artist Phil Hale does a lot in that style. Confusion and chaos, I love it

>>12400315

This one is extremely /lit/.

I usually find it easy to point out differences between baroque and neoclassical paintings, but when it comes to >>12401031, I can't point it out as easily
Caravaggio usually looks like a middle term to me
am I the only idiot here or does somebody else have the same problem?

>>12401602
>>12401541
hail hale

>>12400315
>>12401422
/his/ is a cesspool of a shit, but regardless of how much it stays a cesspool of shit, mods will never actually change it. keep posting until they get the message. doesnt matter if it's just pictures. /his/ has had more threads on holocaust denial than it ever has had on philosophy or art. frankly, it's a joke

>>12401684

bye, fags

>>12400607
Turner?

>>12400817
i would play desu

>>12401759
aye

>>12400551
I feel maybe what you're gesturing towards is the fact that most contemporary art is very conceptual, as opposed to having a narrative, rhetorical or ecclesiastical function. And of course questions of personal identity and disrupting 'the canon' is the modus operandi of many artists these days, for better or worse. So it makes sense that an instant, emotional response would be muted.

That being said I don't think traditional methods of representation really do justice to the experience of living in the schizo present. I also think it's a big jump to go from the type of thinking found on 4chan to the one exhibited in contemporary art galleries. I mean this is a place where people unironically still use the term "degenerate art". And maybe that's a bit of how you think, what with your characterization of the "art hoe" and all. I absolutely disagree with the sentiment that all contemporary art is meant to illicit rejection. I would encourage you to maybe skim some writing in eflux, BOMB or similar publications to get a sense of what these types of artists are aiming for. You being uninitiated doesn't mean the art is being opaque. That may seem like it defeats a sort of "self-evidence" in the art, but then again visual art has nowhere near the ubiquitous social function that it did in, say, the days of the salon.

I'm not someone who decries beauty or the ideal form in the work of the Old Masters, but at the same time I don't believe you should hand-wave away all contemporary art as the work of some nihilistic, academic motive. Basically I think the ability of anyone on this board (including myself) to critique art made today is very lacking, and if you really want to get a sense of what's going on you should invest some time absorbing the writing and thinking of those that live and work in that world - even if you do take it with a grain of salt. Rambling a bit but those are my thoughts.

>>12401796
that'll do me for now

>>12400623
I live in Minnesota, the Minneapolis Institute of Art has an excellent collection for a city of this size. It probably falls somewhere in the top 15-20 best art museums in the country.

It's also free which is great when you just want to pop in and check out a few pieces or see a new exhibit.

Pic related: It's a Matisse they hold.

>>12401917
Some of the artists they have works by:

Mondrian
Matisse
El Greco
Picasso
Seurat
Miro
Monet
Manet
Signac
Pisarro
Van Gogh
Gaugin
Gérôme

Lots of impressionist and post impressionist heavy hitters

>>12401697
Doesn't mean you should ruin /lit/ even more than it already is.
Take this non /lit/ related shit away somewhere again.
These are worthless threads anyway since tese pieces never even spur any discussion, it is just a vomiting up of your "favorite pieces of art" you only ever saw as pixels.

gtfo anon
/lit/ is for shit argumentation
we don need your quality here

>>12401848

Good post, fair ideas (I'm not who you responded to). I don't know much about contemporary art as far as what's placed in museums but in regards to the stuff you see on Instagram like pollynor I think it's fair to disregard as a product of capitalism turning art into a commodity and destroying its soulfulness. I wish there was some way to integrate this new, quick, commodity-art style with sincere emotional or spiritual output but I haven't seen it done as of yet.

>>12402069
>>12401848

>>12400551
You're not entirely wrong. I was at the Tate Modern yesterday and felt suffocated after an hour—a majority of the work made me dizzy and queasy. The truth is, contemporary art is in desperate need of revivification. It's become in many ways as hollow as the social media technologies holding it precariously up from the bedrock of art history, a cultural thread that once nourished rather than snidely mocked and ridiculed its environment.

The commodification and branding of art is its gruesome beheading in the torture chamber of commerce.

>>12402578
why artists don´t make pieces like pic related anymore? are they lazy? or they´re just talentless hacks?

>>12402620
1. can easily be done with a computer nowadays. Photography has made naturalistic paintings obsolete
2. thematically uninteresting

>>12402071
>in regards to the stuff you see on Instagram

I was thinking about this sort of the other day with regards to how all these "inspirational" Youtubers treat the outdoors as sort of just a stage for them to work out their own fitness goals onto, I think there's a kind of commodification of the landscape going on in terms of social media.

And as far as integrating commodity art w/ spiritual content I agree that nothing has been that substantial yet, and I wonder if it's a result of media just accelerating too fast for us to digest it critically. Even early net art like Olia Lialina wrestled with the nascent internet thoughtfully, but all social media art I've seen sort of only acknowledges the surface aspects of it.

>>12400587
Is it Holger Danske?

I came here to trash this thread but it's pretty comfy and informative. Keep it up boys.

>>12402879

I just checked her out and she actually does do what I was thinking about quite well, it's unfortunate most people getting popular in that realm don't seem to be putting as much consideration into it. But that's just the result of social media culture and late stage capitalism or whatever, profit over quality, the artist's marketability is more important than the piece itself. I think it'd be interesting to tap into that sort of thinking though, kind of like Warhol did with making art out of capitalist products, turn the formula on its head, make ostensibly shallow art that's somehow vital and masterful, but it might come off as contrived. It's interesting to think about either way.

>>12402620

This >>12402620

But also, it'd be redundant. Art needs to progress, there's already thousands of pieces like that one and there's no point in making less good versions of it in a contemporary hemisphere. There's nothing inherently wrong with stepping away from traditional forms, so long as people are diligent and thoughtful about what they do, unfortunately this just isn't the case very often.

>>12401712
Actually spooked me on opening it, impressive.

>>12401698
>>12401684
interesting. JG Ballard vibes

>>12401917
MN /lit/ Meetup when? Nina's Cafe?

Still vividly remember seeing this painting in a history textbook and being scared of/fascinated by it

>>12400615
>>12400596

Those look like the stuff people from retard associations draw to collect money here.

>>12401253
Its actually better for you than modern porn

>>12403268
How about Super Moon buffet?

>>12402578
Contemporary art may be pretty bad but contemporary art criticism isn't much better if at all. 'Why don't they paint like the old days'

>>12401660
There's too much going on in this photo to be Neoclassical, its more like a frieze. Also by the time of neoclassicism people had studied what people wore in the day and had a greater interest in representing it properly so you don't get Roman soldiers in contemporary Italian armour. Less works about Jesus too

Twitter is the best art gallery online.

>>12404659

>>12402620
of course they still do works like that, haven't you seen the cover for Wrath of the Lich King?

I have never seen something more uninteresting in my life than contemporary art. I swear that it's just some unspoken challenge of passing off the biggest piece of shit as high culture.

>>12401741

>That feel when you aren't a 12d transdimensional quantum tiger

>>12401848
>. I also think it's a big jump to go from the type of thinking found on 4chan to the one exhibited in contemporary art galleries. I mean this is a place where people unironically still use the term "degenerate art
You are correct about that, I wanted to say that I try to keep an open mind and as I don't consider art to have a clear purpose or any at all (like inspiring people to achieve greatness, Beauty or social criticism), I do not believe in "degenerate art" or at least I refrain from using that term, I did however felt kind of irritated about some of the art like the japanese painter that litteraly paints with his feet. Maybe I also felt some kind of unsincerity about the entire museum (and its public ie art hoes), assuming most of these pieces were created by people that wanted to go against the tide it feels weird that the setting (the exposition) is the same than for traditional art, in a highly funded public museum no less. It seemed to me that I was being mocked at and that's not a good feeling at all.

>>12403279
Thankfully, I first saw this large painting in the flesh in London at age 11 and it made a massive impression on me.
I stood there looking at it for over 40 minutes, and left the gallery for the first time in my life feeling like I wasn't just an empty-headed imposter pretending to like art.

>>12405360
Had a similar experience with the Turner painting of Hero and Leander hanging opposite, I can remember being slightly creeped out by the water nymphs that form the crashing waves.

>>12401848
The problem with conceptual art for me is that the concept can easily be removed from the art and the concept is held higher than the craft. With the history of painting or sculpture, for example, it took a lifetime of refinement and experimentation for an artists oeuvre to become influential or appreciated. Conceptual artists have no craft that can be refined. Even though western painting is married with western cannon, at least until impressionism came about, the beauty of these paintings can stand on there own merit without the need for the viewer to recognise the concept. This is why people become so jaded with modern conceptual art, especially if they don't know or don't care about the concept because as an object of beauty or of interest, it fails.

Obviously, my point brings up what art means to people, and I understand different art serves different purposes, but concept art seems to severely fail in many ways to the public and many artists today. I think it's mainly viewed as insincere since it has basically enabled capitalism to come to an extreme in the art world and it has stopped serving the viewer with a new or interesting take on the world. Conceptual art just seems to try and shock people in a world where everyone is disenfranchised.

>>12406193
Didn't realise that the picture was so small, have another.

>>12406193
>The problem with conceptual art for me is that the concept can easily be removed from the art and the concept is held higher than the craft. With the history of painting or sculpture, for example, it took a lifetime of refinement and experimentation for an artists oeuvre to become influential or appreciated. Conceptual artists have no craft that can be refined. Even though western painting is married with western cannon, at least until impressionism came about, the beauty of these paintings can stand on there own merit without the need for the viewer to recognise the concept. This is why people become so jaded with modern conceptual art, especially if they don't know or don't care about the concept because as an object of beauty or of interest, it fails.
You should read Bluebeard by Vonnegut

>>12406361
I have and it's my least favourite of his books, but I was considerably older than when I read his other books. What about it that made you bring it up?

This is my favorite painting. I'm a young single father and it reminds me of the relationship I want to keep with my daughter.

>>12401435
I visited the museum in Barcelona with my parents back when I was 10. Good stuff. Creepy but good.

>>12406649
If this was a /lit/ recommendation thread I'd say Ibn Hakkan Al-Bokhari - Dead in his Labyrinth by Borges.

My nigga Homer

>>12407165
name of the painter?

>>12406908
that bit of fuzz on the right child's lip
the anxious tension of his face
the stiletto on his hip
knowing he's capable of cheating, is he also capable of that rash violence of youth if things don't go his way?

>>12407173

Thomas Couture

>>12400817
I would love to play that anon, and trust it would sell really well. I dont know how you would evade the copyright laws tho

>>12406866
Nude: check.
Book: check.

Another one for the collection.

>>12402620

Because it's been done, ad nauseum. Artistic 'talent' no longer equates to technical proficiency. Many argue that it's a vital prerequisite, though numerous world-class artists like Rothko or Ryman, couldn't paint a horse's leg to save their lives. Laziness also doesn't enter into the equation. Industriousness has nothing to do with the state of contemporary art because there are always going to be hundreds of starving artists who slave away at their craft in order to make a name for themselves or to simply put food on the table. The problem has to do with conceptual stagnation—the art world desperately needs new life breathed into it. There's no singular movement right now that seems to be going anywhere; people feel that every promising creative avenue has been exhausted; and the commodification of the industry has ensured that only a few key players, big collectors and huckster Hirsts, keep all the buying and influence power without allowing non-mainstream contributors to reinvigorate the flavors du jour. It's become a game of branding and investing, forcing the painted picture to take a backseat to fool's gold and sensationalism.

>>12402578
Art criticism departments across the universities have been rotted from the inside out. Check out a book called The Rape of the Masters; it talks about poor postmodern thinking ruining our ability to look plainly at history's great works.

>>12400596
>>12400590
>>12400574
jews get out

>>12408253
your pic is garbage lmao

>>12402012
No. /lit/ is a repository for high-brow intellectualism found nowhere else online. It has experienced much less degradation from the mainstreaming of 4chan than the other quality boards. The simple fact that normies no longer read has protected us -- anybody can post the most banal shit on /mu/ because everybody listens to music. Preteens and (truly useless) NEETS can't ruin this board because they literally can't post anything; if they want to do so they are forced to lurk for quite a bit to pick up the board culture (see, therefore, how /lit/'s lowest-effort shitposts pertain to the most easily-apprehended features of the board: Joyce/Pynchon/DFW, uninformed Bibleposting, etc.)

Posts about fine art will not ruin /lit/ because, as you have said, they do not attract 'discussion' in that they are harder for the average retard to comment on. The only people posting text longer than two sentences in this thread are those with genuine knowledge in a refined field. Excepting yourself, of course. /his/ is long gone to the dogs. /lit/ currently performs that board's intended function better than it does itself, hence the leniency of the mods. Do us all a favour and don't argue for the degradation of this board.

>>12408253
I would understand this post if some art pompier shit was attached to it but not Redon.

>>12402725
>fell for the modernist meme
what you find boring is not a statement about the thing, but yourself.

>>12402012
>only ever saw as pixels
Sometimes it helps just to know they exist, even if I'll never really see them.

>>12401553
>>12401602
It looks like someone coming flying out of a car crash to me.

How can /lit/ claim to understand and appreciate postmodern literature and yet be totally incapable of saying anything intelligent about art from after the 19th century?

>>12408620
Because, as much as I prefer the work posted in this thread over most modern works, this display demonstrates pretty well how little understanding of art most /lit/wits have. They can understand post-modernism because they understand, at lest to some extend, literary precedent and today's cultural dilemmas. They don't know the language of art, so they can't really see what's going on in modern art. Still, I think modern art and post-modernism are kinda shit.

>>12408632
It's strange that /lit/ isn't better informed on art given that Art History books are so good. I read "Bosch & Bruegel" by Koerner it was absolutely amazing. it could be that art threads are full of pol dregs shouting "jew art" at anything that isn't strictly photographic that throws the average off I suppose.

>>12406291
aw sick it's electric

>>12408684
Don't call it photographic. Most of it is not. The photographic crisis was a modernist meme that only convinced those with little patience and less imagination. The true reason art has gotten worse is closer to /pol/'s answer than you'd like to admit. It is not a matter of technology, it's simply a matter of belief. We can't make art about God anymore, or ideals, because we no longer believe in those things. So instead, all we can do is make art about their absence. It's plenty smart, but totally revolting.

>>12408698
none of that explains why we would like literature made after the death of God and ideals and not visual art made after the death of God and ideals

>>12407471
>FOOLISH SAMURAI WARRIOR

>>12408698
You're getting distracted by the term. You and I know that traditional western art is in no way photographic but surely you've noticed that the worst kind of pol-tard thinks that 'strictly realistic = good.' I agree with your deeper analysis though.

>>12408752
Might have something to do with the fact that literature is far more accessible than art.

>>12408752
Because you read to look smart, but you look at pictures to feel alive. You like that you understand books, even when you don't like what they say. You only care about pictures for what they look like, so don't like what you don't want to understand.

must read

-An Essay on the Theory of Painting by Jonathan Richardson

-German Masters of the Nineteenth Century: Paintings and Drawings from the Federal Republic of Germany by Gert Schiff

>>12408698
This is the culture richest period, it is jsut that so much gets forgotten or overwhelmed by something else taking the spotlight in its five minutes of fame.
Therefore I somewhat agree that the lack of popular embellished refined art has to do with the current social climate especially remaining from the later half of the 20th century, but there is an abundant amount of truly moving art created, by techonological means or not, that do never have to rely on "ideals" or a belief in "God", and neither solely about their lack thereof, that simply aren't dained to be in museums or used for art exhibits anymore; quite frankly that could also be seen as a positive as it is less likely to spoil, if one is to disregard the resulting lack of posotive effect finer art might have on the culture.
>>12408752
>the death of God
yikes. Still believing in, and even worse using, such a trite statement.

>>12408804
>This is the culture richest period

why are zoomers so naive?

>>12408758
But that's why the terms are so important. Most traditional art is not very realistic. Much of it is even abstract. They think they are responding to the style, when they are really responding to the content. If you use the same language as the art critics of the past 80 years, they're not going to hear you, and you're only going to confuse the issue. They'll continue wandering around thinking Bob Ross is better than Rothko, and we will all be worse off for it. The only way art can get better is if the art consciousness of the public changes. Like it or not, /pol/tards are in the right time and place to impact meaningful changes on society. Show them something better, and they'll follow.

>>12408786
>An Essay on the Theory of Painting by Jonathan Richardson
I could check my online university library and upload that as a decent sized image file.
>>12408811
there is no denying this.

>>12408804
This period is almost a vacuum. We are so narcissistic. And if it isn't based on God, Truth, and Beauty, what could the foundation of art be? Any art that is not an acknowledgement of God is a vision of a world without God. You will know, because it will make you feel empty, hopeless, and bitter, only digestible in irony and despair.

>>12408804
>yikes.
pretty trite sentence fragment you got there
and if you would have tuned down the autism just a bit you might have realized that I wasn't demonstrating a commitment to that belief
writing things like "regardless of whether one accepts the premise of a death of God and ideals and the effect it has had on art your argument fails to explain why we like literature written after said supposed event but not visual art after the same" just to be defensive doesn't make for pleasant-to-read posts

>>12408820
>The only way art can get better is if the art consciousness of the public changes
I see the point you're making but I think maybe I'm just too much of an elitist to get on board with this. I'll need to engage in some introspection to try and understand what I really think about this.

>>12408823
>upload that as a decent sized image file.

do it, i want a pdf

>>12408836
>And if it isn't based on God, Truth, and Beauty, what could the foundation of art be?
Ill take all those terms and put them in the platonic idea world of "Good".
For what is Love but the striving torwards Beauty, which again is the striving torwards Goodness.
>>12408870
first google result yields you with a readable version
https://archive.org/details/essayontheoryofp00rich/page/n1

>>12408857
Good news. Art exists always in two modes--high and folk. High art is by and large self-selecting. Few people engage deeply enough to participate in conversations of high art and culture. Even most of high society is simply posturing their understanding. But the more widely known high art is, the more it will impact folk art. This in turn makes high art more elitists, while simultaneously shifting the non-art viewing public in-line with its values.

>>12408881
If you do, you'll be making a mistake. Goodness cannot exist in and of itself. You are trying to build a castle in the air.

>>12408888
Nice. Thanks for the discussion. Also, that's a great get.

>>12408901
>You are trying to build a castle in the air.
and believing in God isn't?
At least I am only holding to an idea present in all things of which its characteristics can then be interpreted further as Beauty, Truth, Justice.
>>12408888
君子之德風,小人之德草。草上之風,必偃。
>If your desire is for good, the people will be good. The moral character of the ruler is the wind; the moral character of those beneath him is the grass. When the wind blows, the grass bends.

>>12408888
>Art exists always in two modes--high and folk
https://www.strawpoll.me/17233346

>>12408964
Whether some is high-brow or low-brow isn't subjective; there's a reason why what's considered high-brow is similar
in wildly different cultures, and that is because high-brow has an objective definition. It's always had an objective
definition: for the last thousand years philosophers have made a clear distinction between simple pleasures (e.g. sex)
and high-order pleasures (e.g. literature). Pleasure derivation -- as you will see -- is the core determinant of an
activity's place on the spectrum of cultural sophistication.

Things that are instantly gratifying generally have little value. It's obvious why we have a gut feeling for whether
something is trash, low-class, pleb shit. The feeling comes from knowing that it's not very rewarding, which means it
requires no effort, which means that even an animal could do it. Compare this with the feeling of accomplishment of
having completed a long, complex book. This is why reading is considered high-brow, but getting hammered every night isn't.

All of this stuff has been confirmed by neuroscience at a fundamental level, and more generally by psychology/sociology.
High-brow interests can actually activate neural networks that aren't present in most animals, and these brain regions
are thought to involve pleasures above simple stimulation like eating and masturbating; they take into account future states
of happiness despite the current activity not being pleasant. Example: you're working hard creating music, are frustrated
and angry, yet you're happy knowing that you'll have created something of high aesthetic value when you're done.

>>12408964
>thinking that's what I meant by high and low

>>12408978
you didn't say low-brow you said folk

>>12408990
i´m not the same anon

>>12408956
And what are Beauty, Truth, Justice? What is goodness? Where do they lead and how do you know them?

No candle is brighter than the moon.

>>12408987
you didn't use the word low

>>12409018
As though that makes a difference.

>>12409001
I can only know of that which I can observe. Therefore I am only able to conclude there is an Idea of "Good" that is inherent in all things, and to which all other predicates (beauty, justice) strive torwards.
I know them by observing through my senses, and don't diluge myself by making claims of such a thing as God. or calling the idea of "Good" god.

>>12409061
yes

>>12409074
That's strange, if I change low for folk, and vice versa, there is no change in meaning as I wrote it. There is one art created and cared for by the people out of the tradition of their life, which they do simply for the sake of doing. Then there is another art, cultivated by those with wealth and power which is made for its virtue. That industrialist have tried to profit from these modes of human experience means nothing for their essential nature.

>>12409071
>I can only know things I observe
false

post folk music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ItNxpwChE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIHCeSyvzUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FF6MpcsRw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwQgjq0mCdE

>>12409118
*ahem*

>>12409140
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFa5tGCn8e4

>>12409162
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw9CALKOvAI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPT5pvjkgL0

can anyone recommend me art history books? i'm interested in this but never really learnt anything

>>12409257
I wouldn't know I just spend all my time listening to folk music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfrAoakV9SY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiaYDPRedWQ

>>12401848
>if you really want to get a sense of what's going on you should invest some time absorbing the writing and thinking of those that live and work in that world - even if you do take it with a grain of salt. Rambling a bit but those are my thoughts.

This is a loss of time. Only the refinement and zoom out of time can place an artist in its proper place and in my opinion the fate of most of this "art" is to be forgotten.

>Oh, a fucking black square! This changed everything about how I feel about my life!

I maybe be strawmaning here but these words are yet to rise to something that could be comprehended without a text explaining explicitly what's happening.

>>12409257
I only read Gombrich which is admitedly babbys first art history book but I found it great.

>>12408978
Terrific post, my friend.

>>12409565
>>12409573
Based Finnposter

>>12400812
Can someone explain to me why this is art? I'm not trying to be a cunt, I just don't understand what makes this art other than it being an intentional production.

>>12409678
>I'm not trying to be a cunt
try harder

>>12409692
Can you actually offer an explanation?

>>12409701
Yours is fine, anon.

>>12409678
you don't ask
>can someone explain to me why this is a music ?
when you hear something

I have a question for you, did you ever had any unexplicable feeling of beauty toward something in your life or this concept is foreign too ?

>>12408978
Chaste and, dare I say, breadpilled.

>>12409678
Pattern in patterns. Mondrian is trying to create a unity by only using rectangles inside the canvas while referencing the rectangular canvas itself. Proportions, the variety in the reds, yellows, and blues. Limitations = creaitivty, primary colors, b/w, straight lines. He claimed that the inspiration came from looking at the negative space between leaves against the sky.

Also it was a time when these kind of artists still had traditional training and chose to go a certain direction instead of simply going there because they lacked traditional trainging. Here's a drawing he did when he was young.

>>12406193
>The problem with conceptual art for me is that the concept can easily be removed from the art and the concept is held higher than the craft

This is the opposite of a problem. Contemporary art is art being true to itself. There is a separation of art from craft; why we even talk about 'art', as something that exists, after the renaissance at all. There is no art without theory, no theory without history, no history without trying to unwrite itself; no theory without metaphysics. The value after the renaissance is on the theory rather than the material. 'Craft' is the 'proper' of metaphysics, the refining to make the signifier disappear. Art 'without' metaphysics (I argue that this is the main problem actually that contemporary art pretends to be without metaphysics but is still onto-theological, the art object being the object par excellence, the present object, present rather than re-present/representative, that is ideal in its singularity and unrepeatability, perhaps by the imparting of the subjective by the artist..?) no longer needs this refining for it to be 'proper' to the Western shorthand of the ideal that is the genre of history painting, religious subjects, etc. -- eventually nature, the natural was raised to these heights in the hierarchy of genres, a good indication of the 'Age of Rousseau' in metaphysics that lead toward a decline in 'artificiality' and art attempting to overcome or emancipate itself from its artificiality by being 'true' to republican human subjects. Craft is a hypocrite, that is supposed to make itself disappear but still we remark upon how well it is executed to make itself disappear, hence still be visible. Art has come a long way, but still is what it has always been. It has joined us on the adventure of metaphysics.

>>12408698
We make art about making art, about the history of art for its own sake. We make our own history, basically, and our own art history. Art is in a 'crisis' now as much as conversation now is in a crisis. Irony is saying things people believe without the authority or commitment it used to require. We are playing with signs, with acting. As is our art. I suspect as now people are throwing more commitment behind their words (and finding some charlatans to do their talking for them), as systems continue to test systems in art and elsewhere after the 60s, some very, very good art will grow from the fallow fields of the past 30 or so years (deadpan photography is spared). We definitely still believe in ideals, but we don't do the prerequisite thinking to understand the philosophical presuppositions of our thinking. We're so occupied living our genuine and present selves we forget that everything we know doesn't have to issue forth from our own knowledge, and that which does issue forth is not necessarily consistent with itself. This is also a problem with art. 'Tradition' or an alignment with it suggests hierarchy when in fact we still believe in its idea of justice, and it is a good one, a fair one.

>>12408820
Not him and not disagreeing but this post prompts me to say something about Western art in general: one of, if not the most fundamental aspect of Western art has been the line, which in itself is abstract and unique to man, this arranged demarcation as a sign.

>>12411250
the overwhelming heterosexuality of this post

>>12411199
>Contemporary art is art being true to itself.
I would have to completely disagree with you, contemporary art, at least for the conceptual side of fine art, is disingenuous for the reason that it separates itself from proper craft and it's over embracement on metaphysics, not it's attempt to disconnect itself from it. Concept art is a shallow metaphor for what it tries to represent, the ideas it tries to articulate are done lazily and once the metaphor has been understood the piece offers no more depth or reflection for the viewer. People are fed up with conceptual art because once they get it, it offers nothing else. A painting or sculpture can convey a message, a story or a meaning equal to a concept focussed piece, then provide the viewer with more to appreciate. You can see the artists struggle in a great piece of art.
>Craft is a hypocrite, that is supposed to make itself disappear
I'm not sure where you got this idea, again I disagree, craft is something rightly appreciated because it shows a struggle and overcoming, it shows the dedication of theory and understanding of the medium. This is completely absent in concept art. Concept artists I have met never dedicate themselves to anything, often they come across more as a child who wants to be a businessman. They revere play and experimentation, but not on their own ideas, but one that was laid before them by somebody else. The end product is one that is for them and designed purely to be sold that nobody truely enjoys.
>Art has come a long way, but still is what it has always been. It has joined us on the adventure of metaphysics
It has been with metaphysics before conceptual art, again back to the argument of how conceptual art removes the appreciation of work and puts the idea above everything else.

I am not one of these people who wants art to return to the old masters or with purely religious symbolism, I want to see the appreciation of aesthetics and theory work together again. Even with painters now, I see great technical skill, but they work in the shadow of Lucien Freud, there is something missing, their concepts don't hold up, the opposite problem of conceptual art.

>>12407798
>>12407814
>>12408358
>orientalism
you might go back to your blackedraw premium account anon

>>12401698
>>12401684
>>12401602
>>12401541
Does this guy just suck at painting faces or what?
t. art hoe

>>12410126
>>12409804
>>12409692
You're responses are all shit. For someone who genuinely doesn't understand why a bunch of sterile squares are supposed to be beautiful, nothing here is going to help.

What do you even mean by "referencing the rectangular canvas itself" and why should this matter? I mean if I were to swap one of the yellow rectangles for one of the white ones, removed a few bar lines or changed the red to purple, would this make it substantially less beautiful or is there real significance in the specifics of the arrangements? If someone else were to put a bunch of similar looking rectangles on canvas, why would this be less valuable? This is genuinely not the slightest bit obvious to most people.

>>12407338
Reminds me of EarthSea

>>12400734
Deeply based and profoundly redpilled

>>12401088
>"Guys you can't just heil Hitler in front of women"

>>12406649
this dude browses /fa/

>>12406755
>>12406649
reminded me of Monte Cristo

>>12412171
which one

>>12400315
wtf I love reading now!

>>12400817
I unironically don't understand why no one's made a VR museum experience as a first person walking simulator, but with actual 1:1 scans of the pieces and exhibits. It'd more than doable since you can easily recreate photorealistic imagery in modern games on current consoles and mid-tier PCs as long as there's no animation or movement of anything besides the player-camera involved (making static models isn't very power-intensive).

Like make a VR Louvre experience. It's such an obvious application of VR but everyone's too busy thinking of VR as exclusively a vidya thing.

>>12412106
You're dumb as a rock. Stop posting.

>>12412426
Seriously explain why this is dumb. Most of this stuff isn't at all clear to most people, so explain why the questioning itself is stupid. If anything, avoiding such issue is far stupider, and is what results in people just going 'screw you, I disagree' instead of actually attempting to understand why people's tastes diverge.

>>12412519
Stop deflecting stupid, you're the one saying screw you. Try harder.

>>12408978
>there's a reason why what's considered high-brow is similar in wildly different cultures and that is because high-brow has an objective definition

Can you provide me with books that discuss this issue, and explicitly show, with examples, how high art arose in similar forms is different cultures?

>>12412713
it´s something someone wrote last year, i just save it for moments like this, when discussing art in general, the closest i can get is the wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture

even then it only talks about western high art

>>12409317
>>Oh, a fucking black square! This changed everything about how I feel about my life!
Suprematism is modern art, you utter pleb, not contemporary. Malevich made Black Square in 1915.

>>12412419
It will come soon, the technology isn't commonplace enough yet. Once it becomes seen as more than just a gaming accessory, every house will have one.

Muqi - Gibbons

Muqi - six persimmons

Girl on the couch ( 沙发上的少女) - Pang Xunqin

Spitzweg - the cactus friend

>>12414161
A lovely title.

>>12408978
it's not about gratification
high-brow/low-brow culture is defined by its place in the status, in the sense that h-brow is culture meant to be idolized and sacralized

>confirmed by neuroscience
dont trust those studies, they are underpowered, based on too many assumptions and generally measuring noise. I can tell you this because I've written some neuroscience fMRI papers like those.

>>12401253
What did degenerates masturbate to in the preindustrial era.

>>12414492
imagination or they went to a brothel

I don't know why this thread is on /lit/ but I have a lot of decent res art saved on my computer and will post some of it after I get out of the shower
Starting with Franklin Booth

>>12412106
is it really important to understand what a piece of art is depicting? you decide whether or not it is satisfying, what greater explanation is needed?

>>12412106
>What do you even mean by "referencing the rectangular canvas itself" and why should this matter?
The same way a novel references that it's a novel.
>or is there real significance in the specifics of the arrangements?
Yes.
> If someone else were to put a bunch of similar looking rectangles on canvas, why would this be less valuable? This is genuinely not the slightest bit obvious to most people.
This is a common argument against modern art in that the technique is not high. So if anyone can do it, it must not be good. This isn't about technical execution, but the composition and arrangement of shapes in unity to the rectangle.

What a lot of people fail to realize is that composition and design is the fundamentals of pictorial expression. Mondrian understood this to a high degree. If you only view the work through the lense of technical execution and not composition, then you are missing the point.

http://www.dynamicsymmetryart.com/what-is-dynamic-symmetry.html

>>12414501
Creative thought and social skills? Then the true degenerate is a 21st century creation.

>>12415251
what are you rambling about?

>>12415032
>image limit reached
well alright then

>>12415278
make a new thread

>>12415215
>This isn't about technical execution, but the composition and arrangement of shapes in unity to the rectangle.
modern art is about theory
if this thread is still up tomorrow, I'll write a longer response

>>12415283
I tried and the link to previous thread didn't work so I had to delete it
please send help SOS mayday

>>12415215
>or is there real significance in the specifics of the arrangements?
>Yes.

Good then, because this is really what I wanted to know about your perception of the piece and why you hold it to have worth.

>This is a common argument against modern art in that the technique is not high.
I never said I was concerned with technique. If the arrangement itself is what matters, then the technical skill required to make it need not be any more relevant than that a mathematical proof need to be particularly complex in order to be valuable. The reason that so many people bash on modern art for its lack of 'virtuoso' content is because they have no sense whatsoever of why a given 'arrangement' of color might be considered significant, and hence see no substantial difference between a given set of squares and other similar looking pattern produced as if at random. So explaining that its Art because of restrictions like the use of only primary colors and orthogonal lines only gives a vague, conceptual description that could apply to so many potential things, and many people mistake this for the idea that such art is considered innovative only for playing against particular gallery conventions and being something that just happened to be different from other art objects in that space. And if this is the case, surly it's not surprising that they'd be skeptical of the worthiness of things that don't seem to have taken any particular expertise to produce.

>http://www.dynamicsymmetryart.com/what-is-dynamic-symmetry.html
This is strange, since this page seems to be part of the art renewal circle, and explicitly bashes modern art and the lack of education in classical composition techniques that resulted from this. I'm skeptical of a bunch of lines drawn according to some mathematical convention 'explaining' the beauty of art, for the same reason I feel that the golden ratio and logarithmic spiral overlays explain little.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3044877/the-golden-ratio-designs-biggest-myth

>>12415435