/lit/ - Literature

goddamn that picture makes me mad

this fucking guy thinking his shitty dragon statue is of some elite status

the dude sucking himself off is far more interesting than looking at some unoriginal poorly made dragon

>>4962022
You know what? I've never had reason to think that, but suddenly that dragon looks really fucking asian. Fuck that asian ass dragon. If it were a western dragon, I'd feel otherwise.

>>4962016
Detail and quality of work doesn't matter. At the point in art history, if you can piss someone off with your work. It is capital A, Art.

>>4962022
yeah making a giant "every scale chiseled by hand" dragon is autistic. who the fuck over 12 thinks making a giant dragon is cool

i agree that the dude blowing himself is dumb too but w/e

>>4962022
people often don't get that. though, i wouldn't want a man trying to suck himself in a museum, that should be in my living room.

Which will make you think more?
Which will disgust you?
Which will horrify you?
Which will amaze you?
Which will you talk about after you've left?
Which will be remembered after it no longer exists?

Art is dead, but not in the way you think.

>>4962119
>Shock value is what counts

Not even once, buddy

>>4962207
>shock isn't one color on the spectrum of human emotion

I can greentext too

Also it is piss easy to shock a art critic. But making that shock carry over to the normal work a day person is hard as fuck.

>>4962213
>Trying to minimize my criticism by making fun of the technique

Not even once buddy

>>4962214
>Gr8 G8sby
>dismissed by casuals

lol

is this the guy who also makes video game topics in /lit/ and concludes it is art when his thread goes well?

>>4962231
>implying it's "one guy"
You have no idea how far the rabbit hole goes, do you?

>>4962016
Entertainers like to seem complicatedd

>>4962231
What is a 'guy'? Are you referring to one who is not part of our great hivemind?

>>4962233
big guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUfxnDAAxHI

>>4962242
Wow. Kids really watch this sort of programming? I pressed play and ended up on a never ending trip into realms unknown.

If you were patrician master class, you would know that art is a fantastic way to escape tax.

1. Buy some art that have reached a stable market value
2. State can't evaluate it's worth and tax you for it
3. There will always be other rich people willing to buy from you to do the same thing

The aesthetic value of it, or the meaning behind it, means nothing.
It is simply a commodity to be bought and sold.
What matters is that it is "popular" (it can easily be resold, perhaps even at a profit).

>>4962278

> All art is privately owned
> Because some pathetic rich people are incapable of seeing anything else then the monetary value, art is universally without any value.
> wealth defines the opinions that count.

OP image looks like some high fantasy loving autist couldn't cope it in STEM and was butthurt that no one thought his gay ass dragons had any artistic value, despite his mum always telling him his drawings were good.

>>4962409
Unfortunately, that image is ancient pasta and no matter how hard we try, we cannot hurt the progenitor with our words.

>>4962016
Art is not dead, elitism is dead. When talent is ubiquitous, proficiency becomes a secondary value.

I think carving a whole tree into a piece of art is what makes it interesting, he should have done something different to a dragon though.

That statue performing auto-fellatio really captures the zeitgeist of our era.

The self-suck statue is a commentary on art in general--that it's all one big self-suck. Thus, it says everything dragon boy said and then some.

Clearly, dragon guy isn't fit for well, probably anything.

>>4962016
art is alive, you bastard

>>4962452
It's funny because you're right. And it's probably better done than that dragon.

>>4962242

God the countless hours of my adolescent I spent watching this out of boredom, fuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo9pU1q8sy8

Yup.

he really has no right to be butthurt when he didn't even finish his artwork

>>4962214
>cs:go

>not the absolute pinnacle of the objective-based-team-shooter genre

What usually bothers me with superficial grand claims is the amount of how wrong they often are.

If you claim something and then be somewhat off, I get it.
If you claim something and then it's completely off, fuck you, but it happens.
If you claim something and it actually is the polar opposite, then you should disintergrate your existence.

Someone that is that wrong lacks basic reasoning skills.
Not directing this directly to OP, probably he's just trying to be cute, regardless, people like this exist.

Not only art is not dead but it's thriving like never before and that's an understatement to say the least.
Today it's all about art and aesthetics, we have most of the basic needs met, so instead we go for the appealing rather than useful.
Motion pictures, music, fiction, design is flooding the developed world like never before, with it's variety and volume.
The more back you go the fewer people had access to it, people with means and the art was limited to certain themes, genre with small volume and frquency.

>b-but art meant something today is mostly garbage
No, garbage always existed, only the good works were exalted, this is a typical bias.
Also you're appealing to traditionalist, sentimentalist authority, like one's opinion is defining the boundaries of art.
There's virtually countless art constantly in the works, more than you'll ever confront in your entire life.
I'm drunk and bitter today but you can read between the lines or the fucking lines themselves.

>>4962658

/thread

>>4962119
Is a video of me raping your mom the highest possible form of art?

>>4962016
That dragon tail looks like shit, though. An elementary schooler could do that with some instruction in woodcraft.

>>4962214
that pic gave me a stomach ache

>>4962016
No it isn't, it's perfectly alive and kicking through video games.

how does someone become an artist?

i have the drive to insert food coloring into my urethra, and ejaculate onto a large piece of glass, i would call it 'Stained Glass'

would i become an artist if i did this?

>>4963017
Only if people cared to watch.

>>4963017
no
no motive or explanation for the shock value
just shock

>>4963032
>implying the aesthetic value of the product can't have value regardless of its method of creation.

>>4962119
>Which will make you think more?
Not a necessary quality for art, at least, based on my assumption of what you mean by "think more," which is probably some pseudo-sociological/psychological/philosophical rubbish.

>Which will disgust you?
>Which will horrify you?
Impossible qualities for art.

>>4962235
>>4962235
>>4962235
but we're not complicated, I can explain it pretty easily

>>4963038
k
but this is colored semen on glass
not a lot of aesthetic value to be found

>>4963038
Aesthetics =/= art. Nature produces lots of aesthetically pleasing forms, but none of them are art. Art requires a certain bare minimum of conscious choices.

>>4963049

Nature is as conscious as humans then

>>4963048
Ok yes, this is true.
>>4963049
But this was the result of conscious choice. Again though, I do concede that colored semen probably won't have much aesthetic value anyway. >>4963071
This wasn't me... Just for the record.

>>4963080
I'd probably concede it's technically art just to avoid a fruitless argument but there's still a difference between choosing your medium and creating a composition, and I personally think it's the latter that really separates art from just random stuff.

>>4963049
We're part of nature.

>>4962658
This, 100%. There has ALWAYS been shitty art, in every society in every culture in every time period. It's true that there's more shitty art now, but that's because there's more art now period - on a per capita basis, it's still the same amount of shitty art relative to good art.

>>4962213
>shock is the only important emotion
did your mother drop you on your head when you were little?
shock is one of the most primitive and exploitable human emotions
shock should not be rewarded

>>4962658
>Not only art is not dead but it's thriving like never before and that's an understatement to say the least.
have you ever stepped into a college art exhibit?
the fuckers there are out of there mind

they literally chose something to value and do so
this is the new era of art

>>4963017
My old flatmate already did this. He made a slideshow of many different glass semen slides and then another friend projected this slideshow as video art to accompany his music at an event.

>>4962016
Just admit you're too full of yourself and moronic to even bother with anything that doesn't fall in with your line of "what [whatever] is," which is just an inherited opinion anyway.
>dur ah saw sumfin weerd aht is kill now lolz
Please read
>>4962658
then apply yourself.

>>4962983
Why aren't you a famous artist ballin in cash right now? Don't tell me you're above anything, you're on 4chan.

>>4962242
Wow i had completely forgotten about that show. Before this I didn't think I could pull something from that deep in my memory, but the video just yanked it out.

>>4962400
He's still clinging to the hope of entering bourgeois class.

>>4962016

it's not dead, just been hijacked by morons who are being used by smarter people.

>meaningless art isn't dangerous to anyone

If you really think symbols are bullshit you should start thinking about what a brand name or logo really is.
Advertising is entirely reliant on making symbols out of words, images, and ideas. It's not something unique to art.

>>4963219
>If you really think symbols are bullshit
they are when i read postmodern texts.

>>4963219

You were so close
Advertising IS one of the new forms of art, and conveniently so

>>4962016
>'smth is dead'
awww, this phrase makes me so mad
god is dead, author is dead, art is dead, who's next?
so fucking edgy, i can't even breath
such an obnoxious cliche i can't even imagine using it unironically in 21st century

And a fucking dragon statue is beautiful high art, right?

Go fuck yourself.

>>4963260

you're dead

>>4962214
>>4962016
>/v/ trying to talk about art

is there anything more suicide-inducing than that?

>>4963226
advertising is shit, mate

>>4963128
Fuck this gay earth

>>4963310

You can say that, yes, but that's entirely beside the point
Advertising is very powerful

>>4962214
>Dark Souls
>good
Dark Souls are those try hard novels that try to imitate Victorian era writing. They're the garbage bin novels you see as B&N.

>>4962016
The statue is a portrait of the dragon sculptor.

>>4963284
There are two things which make art, art:
1. high aesthetic value
2. an impressive amount of effort put into its creation

The guy sucking himself off has neither of these. The dragon statue has at least #2.

>>4963407
Wrong. Aesthetics aren't art, and effort doesn't count for shit.

>>4963407

Naw man
It's impossible to evaluate art outside a cultural context, and we barely have a defined cultural context on which we can consistently evaluate new artforms

>>4963145
I didnt say that I could do better, I'm just thinkin its hilarious how one guy claims to be a "true artist" and above others while his workpiece looks like it was made by an amateur.

>>4962016
wow, what a fag that guy was

>>4963407
What kind of bullshit is that?
First, your definition of art is faulty and only includes appealing things, while it is pretty common for pieces of art to use lack of aesthetic value to convey a message.
Second, how does effort affect the artistic value of something? What if the guy who sculpted the sucking statue put more effort into his project than the dragon guy?
There is no way to know the amount of effort that went into a piece of art unless the artist whines about how much effort he put into it and uses it as a reason for his creation to be superior to another work, just like the dragon guy did.

>>4963407
>omg this painting looks like a photo best thing evaa

>>4963495
>First, your definition of art is faulty and only includes appealing things
That's what art is. No, there is no such thing as "ugly" or "bad" art, get the fuck out of here with that seductive, shallow line of bullshit. In order to call something art, BEAUTY has to be a necessary quality of that thing. Appeal in some way is an absolutely necessary quality.

>Second, how does effort affect the artistic value of something?
Our respect and admiration for a creation is directly proportional to the amount of effort that went into it. Art has much to do with respect and admiration.

>>4963047
Have you ever been to a birthday party for children? And one of the children won't stop screaming, cuz he's just a little attention attractor...

>>4963644
So you're telling me that that fucking dragon is better than John Cage, Duchamp or Dan Flavin's work

>>4963698
Their work is only more admirable than the dragon in the sense that it must have taken an incredible amount of effort on their part to muster up the daring to trick tons of people into believing their shit is valuable at all to anyone.

>>4963709
While I understand people might not see the point of Flavin at first, Duchamp's and Cage's points are pretty straight forward and don't require any sort of mental aerobics.

Honstely, the use of words like "beauty" and "effort" when talking about art doesn't make a lot of sense since, i don't know, romantism
, probably

>>4962214
Wait, Harper Lee didn't write TKAM?

>>4963717
>beauty and effort
>doesn't make a lot of sense
I guess if you've only been studying "art" from within the past 150 years and know nothing about the concept other than what university retards and textbooks told you.

>>4963644
>Our respect and admiration for a creation is directly proportional to the amount of effort that went into it.
Wrong. A lot of great poems were done on the fly, a lot of terrible novels took years to write.

>>4963698
>Displaying everyday objects
>It's art

I can't believe real people actually believe this stuff...I always kind of thought it was a sick parody or a joke and in actuality Duchamp was just laffin.

>>4963731
>A lot of great poems were done on the fly
Great poets, on the other hand, do not just appear on the fly. There is still substantial effort involved.

>>4963746
Some do. Most classic writers did not have more "training" than the average reader of their time.

>>4963644
>with that seductive, shallow line of bullshit.
So, if you say something is art because it looks pretty its not shallow? What kind of reasoning is that?
And art is not some kind of status. You are like the retards arguing for some shitty videogame to be accepted as a form of art, like it would instantly become valuable because someone called it "art".
Every form of creative creation is art. A scribble in a students notebook is just as much art as Michelangelos David, but the quality clearly differs. A shitty book is still a book.
>Our respect and admiration for a creation is directly proportional to the amount of effort that went into it.
It isnt. Why should I care if someone worked half of his life on something I dont like? I am not obliged to like it because of the artists effort.

>>4963731
By 'on the fly' you mean after years of studying and writing poetry?

>>4963731
There are great novels that were written in draft in only a few months.

>>4962016
>Art is dead.
This is where this thread should have ended.

>>4963776
Once upon a time, the average nobleman/bourgeois knew how to write really good verse, without "years of studying". Everybody in the educated classes knew some poems, the basic rules, and they made lines. Some were amazing, they just didn't have the will to write long books full of them; but they obviously could.
The simple thought of "studying poetry", like it's a serious matter and not a mere game, would have been smirk-inducing. The exact equivalent today would be "studying vidya" or "studying Star Wars" because you write great fan fiction.

>>4962022
>being openly homosex

>>4962016

Dead is art.

>>4963038
If its aesthetic value will be judged independent of its method of creation, then there's no reason to fill his cock with colored dyes just to splatter some paint on glass. The method of creation obviously plays a part here

This guy sucking himself off complements the unfinished tail pretty well. Would art.

>Not understanding the genealogy of art

>>4963764
>So, if you say something is art because it looks pretty its not shallow? What kind of reasoning is that?
Not a single person on earth has ever used the word "art" in reference to anything they utterly despised. Not one. Why? Because it wouldn't make sense, it would be a contradiction of terms. "Ugly art" and "bad art" as phrases are oxymorons. Even the faggots that use these phrases and think something like a urinal is art see something beautiful and appealing in its presentation and the cultural assertion that it should be praised.

Really, I don't know how fucking dull you have to be to NOT understand this, but apparently there are a lot of people who don't.

>And art is not some kind of status. You are like the retards arguing for some shitty videogame to be accepted as a form of art, like it would instantly become valuable because someone called it "art".
No fucking idea how you got any of this from my post. It's the attitude I am directly opposing. Those people are the same talentless shitstains that praise a fucking urinal.

>It isnt. Why should I care if someone worked half of his life on something I dont like?
Look at a Greek statue or a painting by Michelangelo or someone of comparable skill and complexity. If they don't strike you as requiring incredible precision and effort, and that doesn't somehow affect the degree of which you admire these creations, then I just can't help you. You don't belong in any discussion of art. You are the anti-art man then.

>>4964069
>skill and complexity
Thats not what I was talking about. Of course, skill and complexity is admirable, but effort is not because anyone can put effort into something without thinking about it.

The statue is pretty well hung, you gotta admit.

>>4962084
So I haven't been able to suck myself off because it's too deep for me?

>>4963801
Oh of course, being 'educated' doesn't count as studying poetry, and 'ma[king] lines' isn't practice writing it.

>>4964112
Yeah, your gut is too deep.

>>4964096
If effort doesn't lead to complexity then it's not significant effort. I'm talking about significant effort, one that has a stunning effect on the viewers when they realize just how much was invested in a thing's creation.

It's honestly the lesser of the two important parts of art though. If there's no aesthetic value to the creation, it doesn't really matter how much effort went into it. But this is why "classical" artists always have a problem with modern artists, because the tools they use (thanks to the progresses of technology) makes their work easier and therefore less admirable.

>>4962016
>Somebody asks for the rest of the dragon
>"I can't. The head is bad... I mean, people like it, but I hate it. Again, I spent so long on the scales that I ran out of time. The final bit of tail was just tapered smooth, the head was a hack-job... Year was over, not much else I could do."
>"Still, I could've squat over it and fired diarrhea from my anus, and it STILL would've looked better than other people taking the same class."

Holy shit, is this guy for real?

The dude who organized that expo was an utter genius. He saw the dragon and knew that rhe artist who made was a vain motherfucker, so what did he do? He put that other sculpture there to expose his self importance and it worked.

>>4964496
Yes, and then started monitoring 4chan in order to catch him in the act of complaining.

>>4963353
Demon's Souls is superior in every way.

exit galleries don't really reflect the state of contemporary art very well

but no art isn't dead

>inb4pisschrist

>>4963737
it was more effective then because readymades were a relatively new thing. now we've lived for decades with mass produced objects that the effect is lost. the readymade is interesting because it was something of the time that seemed kind of alien. if you don't think modernism is alien then you don't really think hard enough in your everyday life

>>4962658
Motion pictures, music, fiction, design is flooding the developed world like never before, with it's variety and volume.
>Confusing quantity for quality

No, garbage always existed, only the good works were exalted, this is a typical bias.
>In the past garbage was a by-product of people attempting to make art, now art institutions prioritize the production of garbage as the desired end result

Also you're appealing to traditionalist, sentimentalist authority, like one's opinion is defining the boundaries of art.
>Do you mean the kind of authority that judged art on objective standards of quality (composition, values, lighting, anatomy, perspective, color theory etc.) that are beyond the comprehension and abilities of conceptual artists?

There's virtually countless art constantly in the works, more than you'll ever confront in your entire life.
>Needle in the hay stack. Implying that the exception proves the rule

>Pleb detected.

>>4963049
No.
Art is an affect and a percept.
The affect creates the percept and the percept is the ready-at-hand and potentiality for its present-at-hand, etc., of the artistic object.
Life is Being is ready-at-hand, etc., is affect and percept, etc.
Life is art.
Or if one wants to argue about Sartre's nothingness - art is always a potentiality in every thing to Dasein.
If life is art, or whatever, the question then is not art dead but what type of art is being privileged, propagated, etc.
Is Medieval-style art dead?
Yes.
Is arguably lazy but verifiably conceptual art dead?
No, no it is not.

TL;DR - Blah blah, I like you. You understand there is a distinction between art and aesthetics.

>>4962016
I just don't understand why the guy didn't carve his dragon to be sucking itself off.

>>4964586
which written source(s) did you get your opinions from? i am especially interested in this line "now art institutions prioritize the production of garbage as the desired end result"

>>4964113
Most old poets didn't "study" or "practice" poetry in the modern sense of the term (did you "study" Internet to "practice" 4chan?). It was just a game whose best and most dedicated players became legendary. Now everything's much too serious. Studying poetry at the university. Practicing lines for hours like it's a serious craft. Writing poetry professionally. It's a bad attitude and it produces bad results, just like studying 4chan in college before leading a life of professional 4channing would be retarded and sterile.
Racine's Phèdre, his masterpiece, was written in some hours, just like a long and advanced shitpost would be.

>>4962016

How the fuck can art compete with the shit DARPA comes up with? A prosthetic arm that can be controlled by the brain and feel temperature. That melding of science and design for meaningful use is true art.

A statue of someone trying to suck his own dick is truly symbolic of modern art.

Artist's make me lel with their "concepts".

>>4963407

A B-2 stealth bomber was developed over decades and is highly aesthetically pleasing, what art work equals it?

>>4964618

This is very true!

>>4964638
>meaningful

get your weasel words out

>>4964654
ok babby just for you

Utilitarian purpose.
"All art is useless"

>>4964586
I really like that painting. Are you posting that as an example of bad art? Because I'd totally buy a reproduction of it.

You obviously haven't heard of banksy.

>>4962016
Goddammit. Why the fuck doesn't /pol/ stay in /pol/

>>4964586
If you're using greentext and quoting someone it's helpful to put THEIR words in greentext and your own words in regular text.

>>4964889
Hahahahaha that fucking faggot has $50 T-shirts on wal-mart.com

>>4965562
This thread is actually surprisingly not all that /pol/ (at least I was expecting more "fuck modern art" circlejerking when I saw the OP).

>>4965562
>Implying art and subjectivity is not discussed here weekly
>Implying you aren't new as fuck and just parroting the party mantra

Kill yourself

>>4962016
"Do you see this? These towns and streets? Sociopaths! We will fill this city with sociopaths!"

>is surprised when art and the are community goes weird.

>>4965593
Modern art is used to launder money and drugs and was inventes by the CIA during the cold war.

>>4965670
k

>>4965674
>He thinks that was a tongue-in-cheek joke about the lack of /pol/

lol

>>4965670
>was inventes by the CIA during the cold war.
Modern art can be traced to the late 19th century. The CIA manipulating it for whatever purpose doesn't mean that they created the movement. Are you referring to post-modern art? Because that also existed before the Cold War.

>>4965660
What is that quote from?

Also, I am getting better and better at spotting sociopaths. They get so flustered when you allude that you are on to them hahaha. Scary motherfuckers, though. They will ruin your life and not even think twice about it.

>>4964069
>Really, I don't know how fucking dull you have to be to NOT understand this, but apparently there are a lot of people who don't.
Well, good thing the grand master of art is standing right before me.
>Those people are the same talentless shitstains that praise a fucking urinal.
Its also nice how your opinion seems to be objective while everybody who does not agree with you is simply wrong.
If beauty, which is a purely subjective attribute, defines art, then everything is art, since anyone will find beauty in anything.

>>4966911
Do you really think art is something objective? Seriously?

>>4964615
Personal observation, most art programs favor conceptual (modern) art, where technical skill is either ignored or shunned. There are relatively few academic realist schools (schools that teach you technique and education rather than indulgence).

>>4964871
It's an example of an objectively good painting using the criteria mentioned in my original post.

>>4965670
No.

Modernism was in fact encouraged and subtley promoted by the CIA as part of the US' dickwaving contest with Russia, but that's really it.

The idea was to show US cultural superiority in Avant-Garde art of the time.

>>4967148
What are the differences between academies, ateliers, classes or workshops, and living master classes? What is that map supposed to be telling me?

>>4967282
Meant for >>4967251

Weren't drawings by the author of Jojo's Bizarre adventure recently shown in the Louvre and used as the them for Gucci's latest series or some thing?

>>4962214
I agree.
Dark souls is similar to the great Gatsby in that they are overrated shit.

>>4962400
> wealth defines the opinions that count.
Funny, it actually does.

Fuck Picasso.
Fuck matisse.
Fuck Vincent Van Gogh.
Fuck Damien Hirst.
Fuck David Foster Wallace.
Fuck James Joyce.
Fuck Ezra Pound.
Fuck Bret Easton Ellis.
And most importantly, fuck you Tao Lin.

>>4967282
It's just part of the "Art Renewal Center" schtick. They're an organization who promotes representative art in the academic tradition, and their list of art institutions are places which teach (presumably) in some fascimile of the academic style from the 19th century.

They also masturbate furiously to William Bourgeau all day erry day.

>>4967325
>Art Renewal Center

So I found this:
http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/salon_winners.php?contest=2013-2014%20Salon&page=main#Best in Show

And all I can think is, "oh wow." So there are still people who paint like this? Maybe there is hope for European civilization.

>>4967318

>>4967282
The map shows the location of atelier type schools, once the only type of art school. Now they are very rare. Especially compared to liberal free-form art programs.

>>4967325
ARC is questionable but you can't deny the genius of Bouguereau.

>>4962072
but the quality of the guy is waaayyy better than the tail


why would anyone think art should be respected for the subject and not the technique.

Traditionalists are at the stage where if a 10 year drew a picture of jesus, they'd respect it more than a renowned artist drawing a cock.
That's just as bad as the left liberal reverse of putting a toilet in a gallery or whatever.

>>4964618
I don't disagree with you (I'm not the one you were arguing with) but Racine is a bad case in point. He was a very accomplished hellenist and latinist (we still have his copies of classical Greek authors with comments in classical Greek from his own hand). He must have spent a lot of time studying Greek and Latin poetry.

It's still true that he could write flawless verses at an uncanny speed, though.
I think Lamartine would be a better example in this respect, he himself said: "I did poetry very much like I did prayer. Some think I spent thirty years on my poems, I didn't even dedicate them three months."

>>4963725
There is a theory that it was written by her friend Truman Capote

>>4967379
>Traditionalists are at the stage where if a 10 year drew a picture of jesus, they'd respect it more than a renowned artist drawing a cock.
I've read this sentence about 5 times now and I still don't know what you're trying to say.

>>4967350
Bouguereau's ability is without question, but calling him a genius is a stretch. Not due to his skill, but in that there's little to him besides that skill.

Jean-Leon Gerome is a much more impressive painter, at least as far as Academics go. As amazing as Bouguereau's technical ability is, that's only one part of a painting.

>>4967304
Jojo's Bizarre Adventure's drawing are in the line of Renaissance's representative art though. Those insanely /fit guys with their aberrant postures are clearly an inheritance from Michelangelo. In a fun, nonsensical manga way if you will, but still.

>>4967390

he's saying traditionalists have completely abandoned artistic technique and visually complex imagery in favor of artists who paint the subjects they respect

>>4967394
His skill of composition, organization of values, variation of edges, subtle use of color and hierarchy of detail make him a genius of the visual arts. His paintings may be unappealing to the modern audience on a conceptual level, but this only buys into the fantasy that concept is what makes art great. He remains immensely popular among realist artists.

Jean-Leon Gerome is an excellent painter as well.

>>4967398
Jojo is brilliant, battle tendency especially gives what you seem to be prying at.

>>4967379
The key word being "respect." They wouldn't believe the 10-year-old was a better artist, but they certainly would have more respect for him than for some thoroughly degenerate late modern.

Art's still alive; art will always be alive.

For some reason, a really stupid movement has taken hold; a movement where the irrational view is such:

-If I like it, it's art
-If I don't like it, it's not art

I see it all the time on /pol/ -- which isn't exactly the bastion of pure logic. I expect better on here, though.

>>4967400
That's just not true though... If anything it's the other way around. Traditionalists aren't the ones claiming that shit like this is good art.

>>4967428
You should realize what you're saying is paramount to the same logic as "1+1=2 but I think it equals 3"

Art has only taken a step backward, VERY few artists I'm sure take inspiration in the painstaking detail and sublime subtlety that is real art. They do not possess the patience or mind to make these arts, so they simple belittle the field into a subjective fuckfest

>>4967413
>but this only buys into the fantasy that concept is what makes art great
>He remains immensely popular among realist artists

You mean representative artists? Realists fall into that "conceptual fantasy" category who would deride Bouguereau for painting endless naked ladies.

My point in bringing up Gerome is that he both has technical mastery and quality in concept. One can't divorce concept from art, which is why Bouguereau painted all those ladies... 'cause he needed something to paint.

>>4967445
>photorealism is real art
I guess art died with instagram then.

>>4967481
>implying copying a photograph in any way achieves 'sublime subtlety'.

>>4967445
>You should realize what you're saying is paramount to the same logic as "1+1=2 but I think it equals 3"

Except not. Art is art is art is art, regardless of your aesthetic tastes -- which is what idiots can't comprehend.

>Art has only taken a step backward, VERY few artists I'm sure take inspiration in the painstaking detail and sublime subtlety that is real art.

Art doesn't need to take inspiration from art, firstly; secondly, refrain from No True Scotsmans.

>They do not possess the patience or mind to make these arts, so they simple belittle the field into a subjective fuckfest

I really don't give a shit: if you dislike it, it's art; if you like it, it's art.

If you dislike pizza, it's still pizza; if you dislike a film, it's still a film. The same applies to art. Art isn't what YOU like, because it devolves into a No True Scotsman.

I keep having to repeat this everytime this comes up. ART IS ART, REGARDLESS OF YOUR EMOTIONS.

>>4967510
Define art.

>>4962016
The statue of a guy sucking his own dick is pretty retarded, but your dumb dragon tail thing isnt much better.

"Art" is a subjective term

>>4967428
If something is downright terrible and repulsive, there is no way I can consciously assert that it's art to me without lying to myself. End of story.

>>4967148
No, I said you act as if your opinion was objective.

>>4967736
.. What exactly do you think qualifies something as art?

>>4966512
It's fairly well known how CIA pushed second-wave modernism (abstract expressionism in particular) to show de Iron Curtain artists they could create freely in the ocident if they wanted to.

>>4962022
I love that he didn't even finish his shitty dragon, and claims it's still amazing.

>>4967736
>If something is downright terrible and repulsive, there is no way I can consciously assert that it's art to me without lying to myself.

That's nice; it's wrong, but nice.

>>4967736
why do you discount repulsion as a valid emotional expression? Human experience is more than pleasantry and beauty, so if that's all art reflects then it's pathetic.

>>4967934
I don't discount repulsion when there's something beautiful to be said or made of it... like tragedy in storytelling; tragedy, when done well, is unbelievably beautiful. It can represent the condition of this existence better than anything. A good tragedy is very hard to do, and I greatly respect someone who can pull it off. But then we're talking about beauty once again, not repulsion; repulsion is no longer what's being admired here. In matters of art, no matter what you're looking at, you're admiring something beautiful about it, if you admire it at all. Which you need to before you can consciously assert that it's art and be true about it.

>>4968449
tl;dr of that post: art is something you admire. How can you admire something that truly repulses you? You can't, because it's not how admiration works, therefore it's not how art works.

>>4962016
Depends on the self fellateing statue and whether it is a comment on artists like pic related hates

>>4965590
They are worth it. Banksy is legit

>>4968449

pls stop using the term beautiful as a characterization of art while stating that you dont mean to discount repulsion

>>4962016
This guy spent 30 mins on a guy jacking himself off and was paid as much as a fucking sperglord making a retarded-ass dragon. He's the winner here.

>>4967858

i thought they favoured "minimalism"

>>4968467
I absolutely can admire something that repulses me. and that's beside the point. art isn't about personal admiration. I feel like you need to clarify what beautiful means to you if it's going to be the crux of your argument.

>>4968897
>I absolutely can admire something that repulses me.
Go ahead and try to prove that one. I'll be waiting.

>>4968449
>>4968467
>art is something you admire

The egocentricism in this thread is fucking disturbing. You don't decide what art is, it has to do with how it was created and exists as art regardless if you chose to acknowledge it as art or not.

>>4968922
>You don't decide what art is
Yeah, I do. We all do.

You have no idea what art really is. It's on par with the concepts of good and evil, i.e. subjective.

>>4962016
That is the most perfectly ironic post I've ever seen. I would be surprised if the poster made both the dragon and the dude and set them next to each other to take this picture and make this post.

>>4968953
We can't nail it down completely but there are some requirements that are not exactly up for debate. It's about as subjective as 'table' or 'pen', we just have a clearer understanding of the latter.

Please read for further information before you retreat into relativism.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

>>4968904
how the fuck do I prove that? I'm stating how i feel about things. do you want some sort of hyper advanced brain scan? I am horribly repulsed by parasites, but that doesnt mean there aren't features or aspects of them that i find interesting or admirable. The feeling of revulsion itself is one worth feeling every now and then, its like why people read ghost stories- being scared can be worthwhile.

>>4968981
Like I haven't read up on this shit already, or done my own thinking.

The only real requirement art has is admiration; art is in the eye of the beholder, and that eye must be admiring whatever it is he wishes to call as art. People often confuse a mass collective of similar notions of art as having anything to do with the definition of art (much like MANY different areas of philosophy). Well, it doesn't matter how many people say something.

>>4969012
you've gone so far as to defeat you're own argument. you're claiming there are standards as to what is and isn't art, based on admiration, but left the definition of admiration so open that there isn't a standard. people can admire anything. well done, we're on the same page.

>>4969022
People can't admire what repulses them. It's a contradiction of terms.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/admire?s=t
>to regard with wonder, pleasure, or approval

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repulse?s=t
>to repel with denial, discourtesy, or the like; refuse or reject

You can't approve of something you reject. It's cognitively IMPOSSIBLE.

>>4969012
>the only real requirement art has is admiration

If I admire a person are they art?

If I don't admire the Mona Lisa is it not art?

>art is in the eye of the beholder
Yes, in the sense that when someone looks at something whatever they interpret and value is up to them. But in terms of classifying things as art, and not art, it's absolute retarded.

>>4969041
You can approve of it in general but reject it personally. Like, nana might think it's a good thing for the community that there's a gay bar opening up a few blocks over, but she personally wouldn't be caught dead there.

People do it all the time.

>>4962214
>gatsby
>not trash

>>4969042
>If I admire a person are they art?
Only if you assert the person as such.

>If I don't admire the Mona Lisa is it not art?
Yes, to you.

>But in terms of classifying things as art, and not art, it's absolute retarded.
Art is just a value though. It is the highest value. So no, it still applies all the same.

>>4969041
Those aren't contradictory. You can easily be in wonder about how much you are repelled. You can easily take pleasure in the fact that it repels you.

It's a simple process.

art -> repulsion (from art) -> pleasure (from the fact that it made you feel something unique)

>>4969012
>The only real requirement art has is admiration

A No True Scotsman isn't a good basis for what constitutes art. Art doesn't need to be admired to be art; it does not need to be pretty to be art; it does not need to reflect reality to be art; in fact, it's easier to point out what art isn't than what it is.

>>4969042
Male bodybuilders are a work of art, right? I mean they eat right, exercise right, and fuck with their hormone levels just to look aesthetically pleasing. I can say this without being homo, right?

The real problem isn't "modern" or abstract art, it's the fact that you let the museums and schools decide what passes as quality. There's plenty of abstract and expressionist shit that taps into zones more classical art had no access to. And it's good.

>>4969055
>The Mona Lisa isn't art

Well, I'm glad we can throw your opinion into the garbage now.

>>4969041
you're right, dictionary definitions of emotional reaction control the human brain.

don't be so dense. yes, if we're talking about a pure emotional reaction of utter repulsion that leavs absolutely no room for anything else, then yes, you can't admire that. not only would i contend that doesn't exist, I would say the achievement of such pure emotional response is artistic in and of itself. I would love to have some art send me fleeing in disgust. regardless, this concept is so narrow that it is practically meaningless in defining art.

>>4969041
You didn't actually make an argument for why it is "cognitively impossible." Your stupid dictionary definitions don't make that argument by themselves.

>>4969056
>You can easily be in wonder about how much you are repelled.
Aha, you see, there's some deception going on here. And this is why anyone here is disagreeing with me—you're failing to notice that it's no longer the thing that repulses you which you're admiring, but something ELSE about that thing, or related to it. Meaning they are still contradictory, and it is still impossible; you're just mistaking what you're admiring with the object that actually repulses you. You are not admiring that thing.

>>4969059
Depends on the bodybuilder. If you say it about Jeff Seid, you are a faggot.

If you say it about Plamen Tsvetanov (pic related) it is, indeed, no homo. The Plam Man is so beautiful he transcends the homo-hetero dichotomy.

>>4969061
Give an example.

>>4969059
You just had to add qualities that extend outward from admiration.

According to 'admiration theory', hypothetically any person is art as long as I admire them.

>>4969055
>only if you assert the person as such

Then admiration isn't the only requirement, there's clearly another requirement if there is an exception, mainly that something can be admired and not be art.

>>4969075
how tall is he? my manlet senses are tingling

>>4969074
you're admiring a reaction to that thing, an experience that thing caused, which is completely reliant on that thing. you're just arguing semantics now. am i laughing at a joke, or the feeling it gave me? they are so intertwined that the distinction is meaningless.

>>4969085
Fuck all this manlet hate. You wouldn't be saying this if you had to walk in the shoes of a manlet everyday. Do you know how disheartening it is for laughinggirls.jpg to be a reality to you every fucking day? Fuck everything. I'm through with humanity.

>>4969085
Unknown, but he appears tall in some photos.

>>4969100
That's just because all bodybuilders are manlets

>>4969074
Of course I realize that. It's just irrelevant, because if you claim that then you've now also claimed that if you like somethings symbolism it's not longer art. Now you're admiration is for the symbolism, and is no longer about the art itself.

Even with that, the art is causing repulsion which causes admiration. The art is still creating the admiration through a technique (making you feel repulsion). The repulsion is an extension of the art, and by your definition, that repulsion is actually art itself.

>>4969098
It has nothing to do with culture and everything with our genetic predisposition to find larger things sexually attractive. Yeah it's not your fault you're short. And yeah, it's not women's fault they don't find your shortness attractive. Deal with it.

>>4969087
A reaction to the thing, but not the thing itself. The distinction is very important.

I can admire good writing even if the plot and characters are all repulsive to me. I can admire its ability to have an affect on me. I can admire repulsiveness's necessity to exist in the flow of life. But I'm never going to directly admire something that repulses me. Art, for you, is what's most beautiful; it can't be ugly.

>>4969078
Jean Fautrier, Alberto Burri and on the more conceptual side of things Chris Burden, Joseph Beuys.

If your first impulse is to reply "they're all shit," don't bother. I've already drank the Kool Aid. But if you can find classical analogues, I'd be happy to know of them.

>>4969106
Anything which is not useful is not admirable and all art is quite useless.

There is too much undone in this world to waste time and effort making things that are only good for some fop's masturbatory pleasure.

>>4963045
>Impossible qualities for art.
Why? What is your definition of art? Is pic related not horrifying?

>>4969121
>art is useless

If I buy art and sell it for a profit is it useless? It made me money.

If I use art as propaganda in order to maintain power is it useless?

>>4969113
if your definition of art precludes it from being ugly then you desperately need to rethink it. no, its not that i find beauty in ugliness. i find ugliness ugly, and still value that.

furthermore, you seem to constantly equate your inability to admire revulsion with a trait universal to humans. not only is this incredibly self centered, it is false.

>>4969133
So you're saying then that art's worth is as currency.

And I doubt the power of propaganda to create USEFUL change.

>>4969121
>all art is quite useless.

True, but who cares? I'm not going to spend my life worrying about being "useful."

>>4969142
useful to the people producing it.

>>4969142
>so you're saying then that art's worth is as currency

No, I just gave you a potential use of art proving that art isn't useless. Everything in that sentence you postulated and projected onto it.

What about before photography, all there was were self portraits. Are those useless?

>>4969144
Why not? Do you have something better to imbue your existence with meaning or purpose? Do you think masturbation does this for you?

>>4969144
>True

Can you please stop conceding things that can be easily shown wrong, you're only encouraging his retardation.

>>4969147
That's not very useful.

>>4969110
It is our fuckin culture's fault and the women for being too fuckin dumb to realize it. I've had it up to fuckin here with this bullshit. Women are all fuckin whores and deserve to be treated like shit like they are in Afghanistan. That's one this they have right in their culture.

>>4969156
>Oscar Wilde was retarded

>>4969135
>i find ugliness ugly, and still value that.
And what do you value about it, exactly? That it's a necessary part of the harmony of life, similar to yin and yang? That it can have an impressively stunning affect on how you think about the world? That it has, to some extent, power and control over things? That it can reveal certain secrets about how life works? If it's anything like the above, then you're admiring something separate from ugliness itself.

>>4969159
Come on now anon, I bet I could show you some females that are ugly and you would reject them. It's not their fault they're ugly, life isn't fair. Please don't be so hypocritical.

>>4969159
Keep telling yourself that, shawty. Modern science says you're overcompensating with your impotent rage. Keep yip yip yipping, little doggy.

>>4969160
>m-maybe an appeal to authority w-will save me

Jesus Christ

>>4969151
Making art makes me feel better than when I don't make it. I don't know if that's "meaning", but it works for me. There are plenty of things that give people's lives meaning that aren't necessarily "useful." Like, strict faith for instance.

>>4969156
Well, I mean, you're right. I just didn't want to have to get into the awful conversation of quantifying inspiration and enjoyment.

>>4969167
Anyway, I agree with it. I've yet to see a good rebuttal.

>>4969172
What, that art is useless?

>>4969162
man, you sure refuted my argument by making up my opinions for me. thanks, it saved me the time.

It is, in fact, none of those things. I just like ugliness. and besides, I thought we had established that's not a meaningful separation, or did you just disregard that?

>>4969169
It's not about quantifying enjoyment, but about assessing whether it has any worth at all.

>>4969177
Art has literal worth.

>>4969167
Not that guy, but it's more like he was going:
>OMG, OSCAR WILDE, the answer is OSCAR WILDE, why the fuck are you guys so dumb? Oh, fuck this shit. I'm posting it. Click-clack-click-clack. For God's sake, I wouldn't come here if it didn't make me feel so fucking superior.

Everyone knows about Wilde's essay on art. We're not impressed you can recognize the most famous line from an ubiquitous essay.

>>4969163
>>4969164
Fuck you guys. I'm not ugly so that is not an accurate assessment. Women will be getting whats coming to them soon.

That 'art' reminded me of bible camp :'(

>>4969177
How do you plan to assess the worth of anything without any given context or constraints? Or do you think you can really assess the worth of something existentially?

>>4969190
Same fuckin guy. I'm 5'7" and I've had girls four inches shorter than me asking why I'm so short. The joke isn't funny anymore ladies and gents.

Damn, bros. I'm 6'1 and I feel short when I go to clubs/bars. I'm sympathize with you shorter fellas.

>>4969162
you're become so wrapped up in your own bullshit your not even talking about art anymore. if you divide the feeling something provides and the thing itself, then nothing is art, because in your definition you must admire art, but you can't because its separated from anything you can admire.

>>4969203
I fuckin hate you. Your sympathy is not legit. You don't perceive how it feels to be me everyday. I'm currently writing my manifest of like of a "manlet". This is just an acceptable form of bullying at it's finest. Why no awareness to shit problem? Why do they focus on the chubbies that get picked on and shit.

>>4969224
Cheer up, mate. :)

>>4969224
manifesto* life*

>>4969230
#manifestolife

>>4969224
When you do your mass shooting, please try to get a respectable kill count. Any thing under 200 is just plebbish and unacceptable. If you can break 300 I may actually have some respect for your short, worthless, manlet self.

>>4969183
Mention the name once and be accused of endlessly parroting Wilde. And then you wonder why coming here makes me feel so superior.

>>4969224
this thread is not about you, short people
why must short people make every thread and everything about themselves
no wonder no one likes short people they are so self-centered and insecure

>>4969229
I can't when I have to live the fuckin life. The last fuckin date I went on was 2 years ago. Bitch had the audacity to ask why I'm so short? She was like 5'2" herself. Come the fuck on. Height should not matter with this kind of difference, Then the bitch has tells my sister she had a wetdream about me after the date but she is hesitant to meet up anymore. I should've strangled the bitch when the question came up. Not to the point of death but to the point where she knows not to ask such sensitive things.

>>4969257
but seriously, why are you so short.

>>4969257
You should ask yourself why you're so sensitive about it if it shouldn't be a big deal. She was just making an innocent joke.

>>4969224
E-elliot? Is that you?

>>4969250
Someone brought is up and I'm just defending my people. I respect you. At least, you didn't use the term manlet.

>>4969267
It wasn't a joke. She's not the joking type. She can't even appreciate a comedy show, movie, or book.

>>4969296
Do you want to talk about it? If I talk about it with you, will you suck my dick?

>>4969303
>>4969303
>>4969303
Serious question please respond.

>>4969309
I'm willing to suck your dick either way.

>>4969303
Bitch tried to come up with some mythical excuse for me being short like maybe too much coffee when I was younger. Bitch, do you understand genetics. My dad was no taller tha 5'9" in his prime and my brother was exactly the same height as myself. God, I want to fuck her sweet pussy though. The window is closing for me.

>>4969325
I mean she had a wet dream about me. There has to be some chance for physical intercourse right? Or is it 2 years too late? She still randomly text me from time to time in her extremely boring way of talking. Women are supposed to do most of the god damn talking and her conversation starters are usually Hey or some dumb shit like that.

>>4969325
In other words, she owns a time machine and intended to go back in time and smack that coffee out of your hand. Dude, she wasn't gonna stay with you on account that you're short. There's more to life than bitches.

>>4969345
The meaning of life is to reproduce.

>>4969363
How pointless... make your own meaning and you'll fare better in life, both in personal happiness and productivity. Reproduction is not a good meaning though.

>>4969363
I remember when I used to believe that. I was 14 years old. Anon, we have yet to discover any intrinsic meaning.

>>4969363
College is fuckin dull. I feel no pleasure from maintaining a 4.0 GPA. All I do is fuckin stress myself out maintaining it. I never go out and do anything I consider fun... my this fuckin close man,

>>4969340
Bitch is boring and dumb and you just want to get your dick wet. There's more to life than pussy.

>>4969378
I'm*

>>4969378
You didn't choose a good career. The main thing is passion and a sense of purpose. But those types of careers require that you really bust your ass, not just maintain a good GPA. Good news is, if you feel passion you WANT to bust your ass.

>>4969392
Major is CS
It's not even a passion to bust my ass. It's to prove to my parents that I'm capable of greatness despite all the stupid shit I did. Blow all of my 401k trying to relocate cities... failing at that.

>>4969407
Yeah, people fuck up. It happens. Plan better next time.

>>4969407
I blew to $2500 trying to relocate to Portland because I love the city and all money spent was basically wasted on hotels, trying to find a job, and almost none of it went to extra curricular fun. I just wanted to live there.

My greatest fuck up to date but I had to get away from my family. They are junkies and leeched money off of me like no tomorrow. Now I'm back living with them...

>>4967544
I will be surprised if there isn't a shoop of the last pic with Strelok and all options changed to "GET OUT OF HERE STALKER".

>>4962214
>MGS4
>masterpiece

top kek

>>4967314

It really doesn't.

>>4967907
And and and the guy that made the selfsuck statue clearly thinks very little of art. He came to the 'fuck art' conclusion much sooner, avoided blisters, and in all ways possible owned OP