/lit/ - Literature

Yeah, but he didn't.

>>2147541
what is art?

what isn't art?
what is the natural world?
what does the futility of it all mean?

This is a literature board.

>>2147554

counter sage.

>boo hoo one thread that people can actually discuss rather than thousands of random book titles that the majority hasn't read wahhh

Rothko's minimal style could be considered a prototype that Tao Lin would eventually perfect.

>>2147559
Do you understand the purpose of sage?

And there is an entire board for discussing art called /ic/. This board is for discussing literature.

Last time I post without stealth sage, you people are a bunch of children.

>>2147570
negativity creates nothing. Discourse on literature is literature.

>>2147580
>Discourse on literature is literature
>literature

See, there is your problem.

>>2147583
discourse is literature.

negativity is your problem

The problem with modern artists is that if you ask one of their fans to explain the appeal, they just say "2deep4u it's art because I say it is and it creates emotion durr."
But I get nothing out of this modern art bullshit. I don't get angry at the piece, I get angry at the piece's fans, like Jean-Luc Godard movies.

>>2147588
why is negativity a problem?

>>2147562
Eeeee Eee Eeee

>>2147588
why is negativity a problem?

>>2147590

I've been into painting for a long time, and while I hate pretension and the fad of minimalism just as much as you seem to, from what I've heard there are some legitimate claims for works like the rothko painting in OP. The work is so simple that I don't get a LOT out of it - hard edged abstraction is probably my least favourite style of art - but we can at least say that rothko is using a pleasing combination of contrasting earth tones, and experimenting with textures in a more subtle way than the average guy on the street like you or I probably would/could.

Is this kind of stuff ever going to hold up to a Dali/Da Vinci/Edvard Mucnh? No, but it's not as completely worthless as the 'a kid could paint that hurr durr' mongoloids like to portray it.

>>2147590
It's been an increasingly meta joke for the last century, OP. Any conversations about appreciation of such modern art boil down to self-consciously ironic intellectual dick-waving.

Also, the CIA funded folks like Rothko in a culture war against the USSR. No joke.

>>2147619

>Any conversations about appreciation of such modern art boil down to self-consciously ironic intellectual dick-waving.

Nope. Pic related.

>philistinethread

>>2147619

Also pic related.

>>>/ic/1049161

>>2147623
>>2147626
I thought were were talking about rothko/other minimalists/new expressionists here. Surrealists and symbolists are obviously quite different in their approaches.

>>2147541
no. your five-year-old brother cannot paint better than Rothko.

>Woooh! A painting that's half black and half white! Where does a man get such inspiration? It's a fucking masterpiece! Not like your shitty comic books, neckbeard!
>OMG! He just put a fucking urinal in an art gallery!? This is ART! Totally not like your little animu figurine garbage, manchild!
Decadence.

>>2147668

butthurt shut-in spotted

As if you could understand Rothko from a 355x400 image posted on 4chan LOL. Try looking at one of his paintings in person from less than 2 feet away as they were meant to be viewed. This is like whining about the production of an album after listening to it once on damaged ipod earbuds.

Art used to be the privilege of the rich. When the twentieth century came along and pretty much everyone became middle class, suddenly rich people who used to feel so privileged felt ordinary. So modern art was invented for them to pretend to be better than everybody else because they "got it".

>>2147541

I think it's rather masterful trolling. All these art "critics" and people who "appreciate" art are all going nuts over a blank canvas or a "sculpture" which is basically a bunch of metal knots.

If you throw ketchup on a blank canvas and explain the meaning of it rather eloquently and dress the part then you pretty much sell it to rich people for a few grand.

>>2147541
Which A Very Short Introduction is this OP?

>>2147541

>even my 5 year old brother can paint better than this

bet he could think of smoething to say about art that hasn't been repeated over and over for 100 years now too :O)

>>2147541
I'm not even into fucking art and I can tell you this: No he fucking can't. Supporting your arguments with ignorant hyperbole leads to no one taking you seriously.

I wouldn't buy that painting, I'd just paint it myself.

But, if I knew that the artist had spent a year or so agonising over it, or if it took great artistic skill, I would pay money. As it is I find it hard to believe I'd be buying little more than an idea. Ideas are free.

I'd pay about 100$ for that painting, without knowing who dun it. I'm not really an art lover.

Wow, that's a great painting, it's amazing.

>>2147929
Do it.

whoa. thanks for sharing, op. those two shades of brown are fucking with my mind. whoever thought that shit up is incredible. you think it looks easy now that someone else has done the legwork, faggot.

How can people think shit like this is good trolling?

even my 5 year old brother can play the 'neckbeard mad at the people who don't take his comics seriously' role better than this

>Rothko
>Minimalism

>What isn't art lul

>all they say is 2deep4u so fuck 'em

>Minimalism
>fad

>Dali/DaVinci/Munch

It's factual art. Factual art makes an honest, transparent statement about itself, as a building whose structure is evident from its exterior and materials does; in this case, the art is an abstract painting whose content is its form: paint on a canvas.

It's not the sort of thing one appreciates if you only think art can be things that are pretty, but denying that it takes extensive knowledge of the field and the savvy to apply it is just stupid.

People going mad at 20th century art is funny, because it's like people going mad at satire.
that said, 3/10 for getting me to post.

>>2147858
>and explain the meaning of it
Wrong. You're not supposed to explain shit. The critics will explain.

>>2147541
I agree OP.

pic related, real art

This is legit art, it has very specific techniques.

You have to expose yourself to more art op.

I think it looks really nice but I don't "understand" it. Is that okay?

>>2148063
i lol'd

You know what's funny? As much as people on /lit/ love to rail against the bourgeois and sing songs about Marxism, they're the first to spit on art that the masses enjoy and celebrate inane bullshit that has legions of academics spinning webs of verbiage around it. Who enjoys this sort of art? Yuppies, for whom it's just another game of social one-upmanship.

Rothko is trash, you might as well fawn over wallpaper stripes as him, but wallpaper stripes don't have intellectual cred. The funny thing is, the people eager to celebrate all modern art have the most intellectually empty definition of art imaginable - to them, art is anything a museum says is art. Even neckbeards who like comic books put more thought into it than that.

>>2149418
nice thoughts. However, I do believe there might be people who have developed a mode of pattern recognition where they can get a lot more 'information', 'enjoyment', or whatever else you prefer to do with the art you consume out of it than people who have not dealt with it for a long time. I had this experience with Death Metal. I had to listen to a certain amount of what sounded like noise before I was able to recognize the patterns and differentiate between the features of the genre, it might be the same for abstract art (this does have brushstrokes, e.g.). However, that does not mean that I deem Rothko's work to be particularly valuable compared to a number of dead leaves or a heap of stones, both of which can be equally significant if you set your mind to it. See also: http://xkcd.com/915/

>>2149432

> Implying you dont already know your name's awesome
> implying you care about what i think
>implying I care about you caring.

>>2149433
I use "however" too much. Also, you can use the name as well, it's not a tripcode. It's not 'me' as a person, but merely a persona - a mask anyone can wear. Try to use lots of 'these', Vlad likes his pretentious 'interpunctuation'.

>>2147757
interesting theory. but wrong.

>>2149418
I'm no art scholar, I've never taken an art history class or done any paining or drawing other than a stick figure flip book in elementary school, so who am I to tell someone what I think art it. I don't think I could even if I was an art scholar.

It seems to me that "art" is as subjective as "fun." I don't think it's very much fun to crowd into a sweat box called a club, and listen to awful music way too loud, but lots of people do think that's fun. Not many people would consider a quiet evening at home with a good book to be fun, but that's great fun for me