/lit/ - Literature

>>13102049
Doesn't have to be a commentary. She is portraying nature. It is idiosyncratic.

>>13102049
This isn't literature you fuck

>>13102078
Art threads are /lit/ threads

Shoo, shoo phillistine!

>>13102067
>She is portraying nature. It is idiosyncratic.
So she is potraying art devoid of any narrative except what it personally means for her? When does this start? With the impressionists or afterwards?

>>13102088
It has always been around. Well not always. Not in ancient Egypt for instance. Most art is in some way self expressive. An art historian might place O'keefe within the context of certain larger movements in Art, or hazard a speculation on how modern photography influenced her technique; but all of that is a critic's task. The work of art is a symbol for the artist who created it, and maybe an extension as well. This is why I agree with Quixote: Comparisons are odious.

>>13102175
>Quixote: Comparisons are odious
Aren't what makes things beautiful the relationships between them and not the things themselves?

>>13102188
No I would say definitely not. Also a harmony is also a thing in itself and doesnt require a comparison to be noticed.

>>13102220
harmony is a relationship between at least two things by definition ffs

>>13102532
A harmony is its own entity

>>13102049
I don't draw much from OP's image. The heavy-handed colors and contrast make it dull and juvenile; it gives the impression that the artist attacked her canvas in a spur of the moment idea. An idea that guttered then went out long before she was able to finish.

Also, there is no aspect of incorporeality or lightness that draws the mind toward contemplation. Her heavy-handedness bloats the mind and brings it back down to the tiresomely earthy, which anyone can experience just by going outside their front door.

>>13102049
That's absolute dogshit. I think i've seen this collection in the denver museum and it was dogshit then, dogshit now. If I had a ten year old kid who painted something like that I'd thrash him.

>>13102637
ur tough

>>13102085
Modern art isn't art though. The modernists and dadaists were political activists, not artists.

>>13102661
fuck off i used to spend 8 hours a day working on drawing and painting skills. finally got fed up and abandoned it. but i've done it professionally and won awards and everything, so if i say it's shit it's shit
i could do something better while shitfaced drunk. how do you even fuck up that badly on a fucking landscape.

>>13102611
>Opinions
>>13102637
>bloviatiating

Not even relevant to the thread just incel thrashing. If someone told you Hitler had painted you would fall over yourselves defending it.

>>13102671
>fuck off
rude

>>13102671
A failed artist becomes a bitter critic imagine my shock.

>>13102669
>art can't be a medium for political messages

>>13102611
Realized further why the image does nothing. That pink that she chose to "light" the foothill with, isn't lit at all. It is the color of flesh; she wants the hill to have a fleshy appearance. What a repulsive and contemptible choice.

>>13102611
>soft lines and cool tones good!
>angles and contrast bad!

>>13102674
No need to be upset. The thread asked for opinions, and opinions is all this thread has. That they weren't to your liking seems to be the only difference.

>>13102684
I didn't say that, but their primary focus was on making political statements rather than art, and they did just that. As art, their works are hollow.

>>13102686
Yeah you fuckwit and it also obviously depicts a heart at center.

>>13102699
>their works are hollow
I disagree.

>>13102699
Saying the modernist's primary focus was political activism is heinously false.

>>13102706
They don't inspire us to any heights. They keep us meandering here on the ground.

>>13102700
Shame the heart at the center could do nothing for yours.

>>13102714
That's what they became focused on. When Dali threw paint on a canvas and sold it for an astronomical amount of money, he was mocking how fucking stupid all the wealthy bozos surrounding art were, but that canvas wasn't art and it wasn't perceived as such by anyone with a clue. All of the equally rubbish crap the dadaists put out was essentially there to make the same statement, they were swindling the wealthy class out of their excess funds for being so god damn ignorant and having no taste whatsoever, because there was no correlation between taste and wealth anymore.

>>13102716
How to be cheerful when the earth is being poisoned to death?

>>13102718
>dali threw paint on a canvas
What the fuck do you mean. Dali was a highly skilled draftsman.

>>13102734
There was an instance where he literally just threw paint on a canvas and then it was sold for a ton of money.

>>13102719
You could be cheerful on Mars in the three seconds before death.
You're angry because you like to be, and everything else is a justification.
The earth is poisoned? You are poisoned.

>>13102747
>the earth is poisoned?
Yes. But surely being jocular is the answer to everything.
>>13102734
Woah one unsighted instance I'm convinced modernity had nothing to say.

>>13102757
It's not uncited you goof, assuming you're referring to >>13102746, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything on it outside of a biography in a library. Also, I don't know where you're getting the " I'm convinced modernity had nothing to say" thing from, since I just explained what they were saying.

>>13102786
You did it you explained modernism in art in one post on /lit/!

>>13102803
People are free to study modern art themselves if they want. They'll come across exactly what I'm saying.

>>13102671
Is this thread a joke? Every post itt is so bad

>>13102826
You're reductive. Your dismissing an entire century of work. You think modern art is nothing but some boasting dadaists. You know nothing and you don't want to know anything. Modernism is so large that it can't be explained in a book, no matter how exhaustive. You are a philistine, and a con artist. I feel bad for you like I pity a blind person

>>13102852
Of course there's more to it... but what's most essential to it is that it was not a very artistic movement. It was very politically charged. Film became a higher art than painting in the 20th century.

>>13102870
I think you're missing out. Maybe I'm a loon for tearing up while seeing a Rothko color field painting. I can't explain it. But colors have a definite impact on me. I've been to contemporary art galleries and have always come away inspired, dazed even. There are so many different types of "modern painting" too, so if you dont like abstract expressionism, you might enjoy hyperrealism and so on. It's almost pointless to talk about. Paintings are silent.

>>13102715
Realistic art is lame and less expressive than surreal or abstract art

>>13102611
>>13102686
Are you literally just saying "it doesn't fit my aesthetic sense so it's bad"

>>13102542
But it's composed of a collection of individual notes. It's not one thing and many things in concert.

>>13102669
Politics is an art

>>13103279
It's larger than the sum of its parts. Else the parts could be rearranged at random and produce the same effect.

>>13103304
I meant its one thing and many things in concert.
And you actually can rearrange the individual notes to produce variations on a harmony.
like 'humans are a bundle of cells' but also were more than just that

>>13102049
I wish these threads could get off the ground more. Don't know what other board could have discussion about the topic

>>13103672
I like this it's right up my alley I like the weird deformed anatomy and architecture especially that horse the colors are very funky too

>>13103679

>>13103694
Another cool one. I especially like the black knights face and the knight on the left. The shading is weird and cool. Who's the artist?

>>13103716

Wyndham Lewis. Also composed five novels, one of which was never finished, and a lot of non-fiction.

Do you guys have any blog/website recommendations regarding art overview-criticism (not necessarily only modern)? I have two that I follow:

besidetheeasel.blogspot.com
https://artcontrarian.blogspot.com

>>13102049
Stole this from a off topic op thread but the art is good, not sure if it's modernist

>>13103772

Why do you think it is good?

>>13103780
Idk. I like mouths as particularly weighty symbols. It's up upon a pedestal in a corner. The mouth has a white bandana over it that makes it look like DFW

Pollack's only good painting.

>>13103285
A different one from the other arts, however. When you start using the other arts for your political statements, like painting, then you squander the artistry of painting. A great painting is not one that makes great political statements, but one that makes great use of paint and painter's tools.

>>13103772
Bacon came a bit after the modernist movement, but still kinda counts. I like his popes.

cute thread

>>13103944
This is spooky

>>13103937
Thats like your opinion man

There's an argument to be made that a truly great artistic work can transcend the boundaries of its medium

>>13104101
Transcendence is a meme. Life doesn't work like that.

Part of a painter's tools is the eye, and what is visually impressive to the eye can be related to the eye's inclination for a certain political attitude. However, what still makes a great painting is not whether it makes great political statements but whether it makes great use of paint and painter's tools. A great painting is a visually impressive one.

>>13104138
For me it's Lucian Freud.

Kandinsky is just the best no matter which era he's working in

>>13104138
>transcendence is meme
life is a transcendent meme
What makes something visually impressive? How can you separate what is aesthetic from ideology and therefore politics? What makes you the final arbiter of what constitutes a great work?

>>13104175
>life is a transcendent meme
Perhaps what you consider the word life to represent, sure. Not what I consider the word to represent.

>What makes something visually impressive?
Visual complexity. Different strengths of eyesight will have different thresholds and therefore different ideas as to what is visually complex, but the universal is that what is seen as visually complex will impress the eye.

>How can you separate what is aesthetic from ideology and therefore politics?
Psychoanalysis of the eye in order to understand how the eye that is visually impressed is not necessarily politically charged.

>What makes you the final arbiter of what constitutes a great work?
We're all final arbiters of our reality.

>>13102669
imagine actually believing this

modernism is dead, postmodernism is dead, what kind of art period are we in now?

>>13104211
Visual impressiveness isn't the end of what makes art impressive though. Emotional appeal is often if not always an equal factor.
I respect you are the arbiter of your own reality

>>13104246
Art that has a purely political and/or aesthetically nostalgic basis. Fucking Walter Benjamin was right

>>13104170
love his painting they used for Petersburg

>>13104326
>implying that those aren't the same thing
postmodernism cannot die, silly anons

>>13104211
>>13104320
Also, can you define what life means to you?
Im the 'life is embodied memes' poster

>>13104326
Him being right scares me and I become scared more and more these days. Perhaps gardening would help

>>13104643
Give us the translated tl;dr of that shit spic

>>13104662
My bad nigger, attached pic by accident and it's an unrelated page from Critique of Judgement

>>13102049
Really like it. Very smooth. Reminds me of Munch, but less sloppy and less granular.

>>13104026
>>13103944
I live about ten minutes walk from the gallery where they keep this piece. Pretty imposing in real life.

I realize it's brown and bland in the picture but there's a red subtle warmth in her cheeks you can only really appreciate if you are looking at the real piece.

>>13104741
she looks anemic to me

>>13102088
the impressionists were attempting to manipulate vision itself for a more vivid depiction of the world. if you think of impressionism as being about personal feelings you frankly couldn't be more wrong if you tried

>>13102049
well, it's a painting of the desert, and the desert lends itself to clear views into infinity and stark contrasting colors. the mountains here also evoke organic shapes such as breasts and vulvae. so here georgia has rendered the landscape as a woman's body (e.g. mother earth)

>>13104764
the actual model was probably 14 or 15

>>13103817
explain why you like this but you don't like his drip paintings? they're both operating under the same logic

i wonder if /litpol/ would start to like modernism if they knew that most of the key modernists were conservative if not outright fascists

>>13105006
that's gonna be a based and redpilled from me

>>13105006
is this true?

>>13104943
The impressionists were not about manipulating vision - they wanted to perfectly portray the complexities of light as they saw it. This piece is a good example of how Renoir, one of the original impressionists, was dwelling deeply on how to capture the unnatural colors and tones real sunlight produced.

>>13104764
good comment retard

>>13105006

In literature, yes. Picasso and Lewis were Leftists.

>>13104764
How so?

>>13102049
I'm that guy who was posting his oc yesterday ill bump the thread

Sorry I don't know any classics or famous artist or I'd post something like that. Love these threads

>>13105451
Educate yourself my dude. Pick up a Tashcen artbook over a movement, they're more than just coffee table books. Pic related discusses much more than just impressionism, and I picked it up at a B&N on sale for about $10

>>13105514
I've never seriously considered it before. I will do so I can have better conversation with people who appreciate art, although I wonder about pretension

>>13105514
>Tashcen artbook
Based

>>13102049
this painting is so well balanced, it annoys me.
& artists don't usually say things, they show you things.

>>13105811
>although I wonder about pretension
quite right. intellectuals & scholars have held art hostage for a few centuries, i think you should be as uneducated as possible and trust your own ability to see a work of art as it really is, rather than spending your time groping for guidelines like what critics have said or might say about it, what movement it seems to fall into, where it seems to be aiming, whether its style strikes you as normal or not, above all whether it can be called important or not - which is far easier to decide than whether the thing is any good or not.
i.e. you don't want to come off sounding like this >>13102611

>>13102049
It's okeefe, so probably this painting is from the point of view of someone going down on a woman. The foreground mountains are beef curtains and the twin peaks in the background are her bazongas.
Nice painting though

>>13108606
How typically male of you.

>>13109175
probably this is a shitpost, but have you actually seen okeefe's other paintings? She painted vulvas and labias hidden as flowers and stuff.

>>13109195
You are seeing thins that are not there because of your male lizard brain

>>13109252
i just see pussys lol

>>13109252
she wanted you to see it. it's like picasso always making the dicks big in his sculptures