/lit/ - Literature

Cant spell fart without art

>>19856557

Nor shart

This is Fernand Leger. Dives further into facets of facets for that 'incomprehensibly modern' look.

Very kitsch. The type of paintings you'd hang in a kitchen.

This one is really unparseable.

>>19856692

Absolutely. You want this woman presiding over your meals.

I think the warmer colors, beige tones, and cartoonish figures common to cubism lend to the comforting kitsch aesthetic.

>>19856553
What's the appeal? this is all just weird doodling to me.

I always quite like the Purist cubism of Ozenfant and Jeanneret (Le Corbusier)

>>19856692
Does that make it bad?

IMO people like gris and leger took the worst aspects of picasso and braque. i see abstract expressionism as the true continuation of cubism — hans hofmann, de kooning are two favorites

I don't know shit about art but he is a paintor from my country who i think it's pretty great

>>19856821

Futurism is kino

>>19856905
>>19856915
these are cool, who are they by?

>>19856730
I tend to look at painting through a formalist lens, examining the forms in use before considering their representational quality. What that means for me literally is that I look at every painting by tracing the silhouette of each individual shape I can see.

Classical naturalist painting (think Renaissance) starts with a representational goal, the appearance of a figure or scene, from which proceed the geometric forms constituting the representation - the assemblage of tubes, ovals, and rectangles of paint making up a human figure, for example. Geometric abstraction, such as we find in cubism, proceeds from a representational goal but focuses more on its constituent forms than the natural appearance, rendering them a sort of independence or autonomy from the represented subject matter - so it is appealing to my formalist perspective.

In terms of representation, though, cubism's primary innovation (along with its contemporary futurist movement) was the attempt to visually capture time as a spatial dimension; that is to say, to represent a thing's changing appearance over time, through the use of repeating forms and arcs of motion. This is part of the shock photography caused to painting with its undeniably superior naturalism - if perfect representation of nature had been achieved, painting had to determine what it could uniquely capture.

Attached is my favorite cubist painting - 'The Knife Grinder'. It's by Kazimir Malevich. Its composite view of the grinder's hands and fingers working the knife as his feet pedal the wheel capture the dynamism of his work, with an energy that shatters the image's panes of color into chasms of facets.

>>19856801
Why do you say the worst aspects?

>>19856775
Yes, me too. I like the clean, crystalline appearance.

>>19856905
>>19856915
>>19856950

>>19856692
a tile painted by picasso in lee miller's kitchen

>>19856553
I pretty much hate all of this, its like trying to be weird and funky in drawing, but none of it looks any good to me. I prefer classical art, as it brings out the beauty of objects and ads history to your senses with great details. A child might learn from some views, while if it were just books, an average person would not know how the past looked like, even with cubism, a person would still not understand how the past looked like, only weird interpretations. I would love to show my future child detailed works from centuries back in time, but hate and think its a waste of time showing him/her modern art.

>>19856905
>>19856915
Explain this right fucking now you silver tongued Semites

>>19857148
ok boomer

>>19857148
?

>>19856553
How do I get into looking at art? Someone make a chart or something.

>>19857160
These are originals. I make cubist collages from found materials left on the street, in attics, basements, estate sales etc.

>>19857170
slightly better

>>19857148
This, it's objectively disgusting and not at all stimulating to look at. I'm convinced that people only defend it as an intellectual exercise in sophistry

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h8eczPx7OZo

For the people that really dislike this stuff, I would HIGHLY recommend the above documentary about Philip Guston who I have been posting. Not strictly a cubist, but once you get past Cubism proper in the 20s it becomes a matter of semantics.
Also the Richardson series of Picasso biographies are excellent.

>>19857172

What are you interested in seeing? What do you find visually stimulating? Are you more interested in visual stimuli like shapes and colors, or conceptual stimuli like representation and narrative?

The importance of Picasso literally cannot be overstated. It is impossible to imagine 20th c. art without him, INCLUDING LITERATURE. He defined the attitude of the modern artist, which is concerned with demonstrating not the external object, but the vacillation and permutations of the creative faculty of mind, the development of idioms, themes, symbols and the relation BETWEEN THEM rather than in and of themselves.
But I admit if you are interested in 'objects' rather than the creative faculty of the mind, then this stuff might not be of any interest to you.

Picasso is the metaphysics of the creative process

>>19857259
I like both. I guess I'm looking for paintings with rich symbolism. Nothing too obvious but at the same time not completely abstract and vague.

>>19856928
>This is part of the shock photography caused to painting

I never found this too convincing because photography never really tried to capture the same subjects as academic painting of the time and painting always had over photography the use of colour. Colour had always been the theoretical 'naturalism' that painting had over sculpture in the Renaissance and rationalism of the Poussinists. Colour photography by contrast really was the death knell of abstract painting, but this may have had as much to do with the stuffy academicism of formalism and its poor response to the more general immediacy and aesthetic possibilities of democratised, everyday life. Roughly equating to what me might start calling the post-modern.

Abstraction to me was really something of a 'crisis of representation', where increased contact with other aesthetic systems (read: primitivism) and languages (read: semiotics) across the globe -- as well as a general secularisation or ideologisation, changes to the production and consumption of objects, cheaper and more accessible tools for creating art -- all lead to the pursuit by artists towards something less representational of something else and more something present in itself; something unique and real. If one looks at the Greenberg sequence, from Cezanne to Picasso and then Pollock, as the historical development of art towards modernist abstraction, it does look like art becomes less about depicting the grand genre of history painting and more about acting history out in its own development. Maybe there is a break there between Pollock on one side and artists such as Frank Stella, the minimalists, and institutional criticism that takes the experience of art out of the object and more towards the (self-)presence of the self in society (of art), and this plays well with the idea that seems to regulate all ideology, which is the emancipation of the self. The surrealists were certainly aiming for this in any case and they drew inspiration from the cubists (as well as others) and there is definitely a heavy surrealist influence on Pollock.

>>19857148
Most history painting had people dressed in costumes contemporary to the time it was painted rather than being historically accurate to the time it is depicting. In this way and in cubism it is useful to show how artists thought of their own time. Art without context is useless imo - even the primacy of beauty in interpretation of art requires its theoretical context that developed over time, in particular circumstances.

>>19857212
I think people who refuse to engage with anything other than their own thoughts is an exercise in sophistry.

>>19857319
Yeah pretty much -- this is an interesting way of putting it. As well I think he shows that it is a kind of meditative process. He definitely innovated within the meaning of draughtsmanship by the role of art within metaphysics.

>>19857270
Exactly. It's about the inextricable relationship between thought and expression, their mutual form, and the tension of their connection.

>>19857339
Maybe try Dutch golden age painting (still lives) but the symbolism might be heavily disguised.

>>19857212
>muh objectivity
STFU dumbass, there is nothing objective about your oPiNiOn

>>19856553
>Juan Gris - much more attractive work imo than the more eminent Picasso (pictured) and Braque
fucking retard

>can't create

I hate it bros

>>19857148
Anons will hate you for being banal, but deep down they're just being contrarian. Van Gough, Monet, Picasso, and Dix are the only ones worth mentioning.

>>19857976
You've got to do the psychic work first. Spend some time unplugging and taking walks in your mind through your favorite works of art, old memories, the characters and ongoing plots in your daily life. You need to go specifically into the places you most do not want to go, the places where you are still lying to yourself. Find those places. Find the common form of your dreams, daydreams, ambitions and fantasies.
A person that creates art has a fundamentally different disposition than someone who is an art lover. An artist is not afraid to misinterpret art, ransack art, take from it what they want what they need and leave the rest for dead. They have the ability to 'get behind' the curtain of work, get inside the voice and understood how a work was produced, and I don't mean that PARTICULAR work, which is more or less personal arbitrary, but the creative 'machinery' that is able to take in the particular and the personal on one side and transform it into art on the other side. An artist doesn't IDENTIFY with the personal and the political of a work of art (though it is of immense use in understanding). This is the biggest difference between art lovers and artists. An artist seeks to understand the WHOLE of an art form, and is necessarily interested equally in the good the bad and the ugly, as it aids the understanding of the creative faculty, the creative 'machinery'. Art lovers (you see this all the time on this board) will always seek the highest, the best, the greatest, to identify with, and disparage anything 'lower', because they only identify with the particular work, not the art form as a whole.

kino coming through

>>19856905
Reminds me of this cover

Amazes me that these threads are allowed more on the literature board than the humanities board

>>19858344

>>19858375
Me likey

>>19858354
/his/ is /b/ for pre20th century, that's why.

>>19857236
I watched the video you posted with an open mind. The guy seems very thoughtful and interesting but his work to me is utterly mediocre and without skill or finesse. The paintings inspire no emotion in me other than a mild morbid curiosity. I genuinely want to understand how anyone can value this guys painting as I see absolutely nothing of worth in any of them. Can you try to explain why you hold this guy in esteem?

>>19856553
>/lit/ only likes pretentious bullshit art
Yeah I think I'm gonna stick with the /ic/ coomers...

>>19858135
>>19857950
What great art is doing is trying to broaden the domain of inputs, to bring in 'personal' fetishes, obsessions, hauntings, etc., express it through a medium, through an established 'tradition', to dramatize what has before only been the domain of the 'real'. This is what is called putting something through the 'creative machinery'.
The artist is able to reverse that process, by assimilating a work of art

>>19858467
What Picasso did was throw the symbological history of art out the window. I am talking about the historical, the epic, the religious of the masters, and then light and landscape later on.
He threw all of it away and started with a new set of basically private symbols. The symbols themselves may reveal something autobiographical or whatever for Picasso the man himself, some kind of impetus to creation but for everyone else they are more or less arbitrary, or a screen for projection. The meaning is in the 'morphology' of the symbols, how they are stretched, played with, transformed, reversed, and so on. This is what I mean by the essential creative faculty of the mind. Philip Guston figured out the same thing. A lot of modern art is almost like a visual shorthand, if you want to think about it that way, that expresses thinking in the same way a jazz solo by Johnny Hartman, or Miles Davis, or Louis might . . .
If you can understand the expression of this creative faculty through a reverse engineered understanding of a particular artists 'morphology' 'symbology' 'creative faculty' then to could understand the seasons of the mind the same way that you know that it is cold in February and rains in April.

What I am talking about is also the same metaphysical conceptualization as the trinity. The father is tradition, the son is 'the unique', and the holy spirit is the mystical and inexpressible real.

>>19858616
But isn't the expression of the creative faculty apparent in all painting? albeit sometimes being overlaid with (and in conversation with) traditional symbolic representations or whatever other content in the painting? And I do understand that there can be value in a kind of 'pure' expression devoid of historical or natural 'motifs' like how you describe Picasso stripping away the traditional baggage of painting. I mean I appreciate the underlying theory you are communicating but I think there needs to be some consideration of the end product beyond the fact that it is an expression of the artists creative faculty. All art is an expression of the artists creative faculty.

It can be expressed as an algebra equation, (x)(y)=z
Z is the work of art that we literally see, pic related. X is tradition, art history, we can figure that out. We have Z and X, Y is the ever present mystical now, that must be recovered by reversing the creative machinery.

>>19858733
The reason I enjoy Guston is because he has gone so DEEP into the practice of freeing his paintings from precedent that it makes the creative faculty almost the material subject of the painting. It makes it almost material, or makes it manifest. The grand masters might be emotional in a dramatic sense (outward) but Van Gogh, Picasso, Guston, are emotionally moving in with an inward momentum.
All art is expression of the creative faculty, absolutely. But some artists have left a remarkable body DECADES of work over decades, documenting the efforts to liberate the creative faculty from precedent, and give us the most intense vision of it.

>>19858736
But why does there seem to be a requirement for you that the painting be ugly for your equation to work?

>>19858787
It is a kind of short hand, like I said. It is actually a very oriental concept of the process that it should be done quickly, with finesse, all at once, all of a piece, and without stopping to think.

>>19858783
Well I guess I just disagree with you. I don't think its valuable in and of itself that an artist has freed his creative faculty from precedent. If the end result is not desirable then the artist failed. Simply freeing yourself from precedent is not sufficient you also have to produce good art.

>>19858616
If it’s you posting all of the other Guston paintings keep it up. Guston is so special.
Did know we could have art threads like this :)

To keep this literature related I recommend The Wretched of the Screen by Hugo Steyerl. Best contemporary art theory I have read

>>19856553

>dude le basic bitch elevator music """Cubism""" with straightforward composition which allows me to ignore the point of the idiom is better

>>19856692

This man gets it, the stuff your girlfriend/wife decorates with.

automatically filtered.

We get it OP, you're an undergraduate.

>>19857236
>>19858616
>>19858783
>>19859118

Guston's work has always been ugly kike cartoon trash with a hideously ugly pink palette. He is remembered for no other reason than that he was a kike who moved in the right circles and had a hate-boner for Nixon, which he manifested in ugly little vindictive paintings involving Nixon's phlebitis. Guston's art is ugly graceless 70s trash which you cite only because the books are available your art library, and good for you for checking them out.

Still, it is useful to know who's who. For an abstract artist who doesn't suck, look up the gentile Robert Motherwell.

>>19858135
this is bogus. you're telling him to become an art lover in order to go beyond that and become an artist, while you claim that when 'art lovers' on this board are ransacking and misinterpreting art for identity, it is not the same as when an artist does it. make up your damn mind!

>>19858616
most modern art did that bro including neo- and post-impressionism

>>19858808
Haha did Picasso work quickly

>>19859281
the craziest thing about CIA art is it did actually beat communism, now commies love it and conservatives hate it

is this a futurist thread?

>>19856553
JANNY JANNY JANNY JANNY JANNY JANNY

>>19859500
I like Boccioni. What do you think?

>>19859656
The dynamism of Italian futurism is often aligned with (((fascism))) but think about it as an exploration of time in space. Kind of like cubism in motion (Duchamp's Nude descending staircase was also made 1912).

>go to hyperallergic
>Everything is about queer/black/latinx/jew art
Any normal art websites left?

Great artworks, keep it up.

Unrelated question but would you suggest studying at a fine arts accademy in Europe?

I am 18 and about to start university. I have always been extremely fond of visual arts but I also know that pursuing painting as a career is risky; I have to choose whether to settle down for a stable but boring career or fully commit myself to the study of art.

I'm lost and hope someone will help me figure things out.

>>19860490
What do you expect to learn? Lots of academies are 'self study' combined with teacher talks meaning you learn fuckall in terms of technique.
Royal academy in Antwerp seems decent though.

>>19860512
Mainly anatomy, colour theory, perspective, techniques etc.
Classical realism in a nutshell.
I'm not particularly into it but, from my point of view, technical maestry is one of the paths to being able to wholly express yourself through your chosen medium, which is painting and drawing in my case.

I expect that attending an art academy would allow me to develop and master technical skills. I don't expect it to "teach" me what to express as that is something which is already within myself.

>>19860569
>I expect that attending an art academy would allow me to develop and master technical skills.
Well then you have to do some research on different academies because some dont teach these things at all.
I know the one in Madrid still teaches anatomy courses and such and the one in Leipzig is famous for spawning a lot of painters with technical ability.

>>19860590
>some dont teach these things at all
That I know. I was thinking of attending the one in Venice, they have all kinds of courses such as anatomy and painting.
Only thing worrying me is the professors: they're not bad artists, but many of their works seem trite and boring to me (pic related is an example)

>>19859118
haha dirty Bellmer

>>19860457
Spike Art Magazine, Caesura

I hate modernist art so fucking much it's unreal
>no wait I'll explain to you what this means, see, the smear of shit represents the interior struggle of the artist who was sick with disentry while he made that painting
>if you don't like it you just don't get it, heh, unlike me! I am very smart you know
>please read "Why you should like Modernist art" by Shlomo Skelelstein or you are not entitled to an opinion
>Heh you lack insight because you are a layman and you can't grasp the technicality of this
I've been a painter for most of my life, modernist art is like trannies: you must say it's good or every door in the art world is instantly closed off to you.

>>19859754
Well Fascism and Futurism are seperate things, but they compliment eachother quite well.

Mussolini was Jailed with Marinetti at one point in the late '10s.

>>19861683
Thanks
>>19861725
Can you blame the artists though

>>19857172
try reading Gombrich's "The Story of Art." If there's a library near you it can also be fun to just go and look through random art books, whatever catches your eye.

>>19856553
I hate cubism. I hate the blue rider movement too.

>>19861995
>Can you blame the artists though
Both the whore and the whoregoer should be punished

This is Phil Hale, one of my favorites.

>>19860490
The art world is irrecoverable. Do something else that is actually rewarding and do art as a hobby or even better, quit.

>>19862061

>>19860569
>from my point of view, technical maestry is one of the paths to being able to wholly express yourself
Express yourself to whom? People want to coom. Just trace 3D models like everyone else and color pick from currently trending artwork. This is the kind of "expression" people want to see.

>>19860490
I studied fashion and communications design in Germany. We learned about so much art in so many different branches, it was incredible. Art theory, art history, typography (printed and calligraphy), photography, furniture and architecture, logo design and pattern design, deconstruction and reconstruction, etc, etc, etc.. we even went to the Louvre.
If you want to learn about art, and get something you can show a potential employer, try to find something similar.

Someone post Gustave Moreau paintings and Frank Stella (wall) sculptures

These are the artists that most impressed me lately.

>paintings in 2022

>>19862310
Yes

>>19861725
is this copypasta?

>>19862197
>Someone post Gustave Moreau paintings and Frank Stella (wall) sculptures
>These are the artists that most impressed me lately.
PLEASE SOMEONE POST SOME OF THESE I CANT POST IMAGES ON MY PHONE AND I WANT THE SMART SEXY TASTEFUL ANONS REACTION TO MY PICKS THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING

>>19859500
>>19856883
Nyoom

Mikey Angelo