/lit/ - Literature

The first picture is a little bit gay though

I'm noticing a lot of naked dudes and penises

>>5228793
complete moron^

>perspective

>>5228793
>evil

>>5228793
The topmost leftmost art in the "'art' now" section isn't that bad.

>>5228793
Well, studies have shown that humanity is getting dumber. This is logical result of that.

>tfw born in le wrong generation

All of that stuff in the modern art section is pretty cool.

>>5228826
>studies have shown

>>5228826
Link to the study or you're wrong

>>5228834
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/15/research-suggests-humans-are-evolving-to-be-dumber/

There is a link to the study but its for subscribers only or some shit. Just google "humans getting dumber" and you will find more studies.

>>5228834
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10196489/iPad-generation-will-have-smaller-vocabulary-study-claims.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2179432/All-songs-DO-sound-Modern-pop-louder-uses-chords-classic-albums-Fifties-Sixties.html

I've learned to stop fearing and hating the degredation of man, and to merely becoming a spectator of all the stupidity.

I sometimes play this in a loop when I look "modern art":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzRQ4QrZnXQ

"ready-made" art.

>>5228843
>tfw enjoying the decline

>>5228854
I'm learning to as well, but I'm not defending it.

People are doing this to themselves.

>>5228858
>All you had to do was follow the damn train

Out of interest, is the modern art to which you refer supposed to represent emptiness or am I 'reading' it incorrectly?

Well, 20th century did have some good artists.

>>5228881
Did she die in that pose? Be that rigamortis?

This has been happening since the decline of the roman republic.

Let it go.

>>5228853
simply repeating Duchamp is definitely meaningless at this point, but that doesn't mean he wasn't in like the top 3 relevant artists of the last century.

but anyway what's with the silly classicists in this thread?

(btw, an artist is necessarily unhappy with his/her time.. being uncritically #teamsocialprogress OR conservative is not where art is made, an artist is both ancient and forward looking, it's not either-or, nor is it politically one-sided)

Who gives a fuck about what sort of pictures people are painting?

>>5228899
10/10 satirical post. bravo.

>>5228899

People who are interested in painting?

Just a wild guess.

>>5228899
patricians

OP, do you only listen to classical music?

>>5228899
your betters

>>5228842
The study they link to doesn't seem to have to do with "humans getting dumber", but rather the fragility of genes.

>>5228897
>what's with the silly classicists in this thread?

It's the same model the empty, broken people use for everything else: they want to appear knowledgeable about a subject, so they fetishize aspects of the subject which belie its *true* qualities so that they can define themselves against everything else and protect their fear of risk-taking (the risk being actual critical thought and development of opinions without a symbolic authority).

>>5228897
>but anyway what's with the silly classicists in this thread?

Are you knew to /lit/? Do you not see the sentiment mirrored everyday in the discussion of literature?

>>5228931
>(the risk being actual critical thought and development of opinions without a symbolic authority)
everybody whoever claims this are always the most self-consciously textually-determined, superego-deferring yes-men ever, kneeling to all kinds of symbolic authorities. everyone kneels to something.

>>5228941
Narcissistic omniscience is a predictable defense mechanism.

>>5228948
like there wasn't omniscient presumption in your own statement

>>5228948

>Narcissistic omniscience

What you mean like trying to armchair psych general nondescript crowds of people while also trying to sound like you're an authority on them?

Do you mean that sort of narcissistic omniscience?

>>5228961
>>5228970

I described a model, I didn't actually accuse anybody in particular of following it. Does the idea that I accused you fit better with the scripts you have for me?

>>5228793
http://news.artnet.com/market/4chan-conceptual-artwork-reaches-90000-on-ebay-71466

>>5228979

>I am so narcissistic that I now dub my confirmation bias a type of model

Fascinating, spergking.

>>5228991
Interesting that you think models can only be constructed by specifically ordained authority figures. What else do you think is out of your reach?

>>5228881
agreed

Have we hit rock bottom yet?

>>5228991
Interesting that you think models can only be constructed by specifically ordained authority figures. What else do you think is out of your hands?

>>5228861
So we can pretty much blame 20th century art trends for WW2, right?

>>5228858
Damn, I would like to know more. Aside from being hilarious in its own right, there's another level of comedy in the fact that the source is a Warhammer picture.

>>5229009
People have.

>>5229004

>What else do you think is out of your hands?

The angst that you are trying and failing to deal with.

>>5229009
If I was rejected for writing mediocre Victorian prose in 2014 and I killed a bunch of people, would you place the fault on modern writing trends?

>>5229017

top bait

>>5228858
that's pretty awesome, actually. the fact that it sources Warhammer makes its idea work even better

>>5229022

Does it make you feel better about dismissing my ideas if I am dealing with angst?

>>5229035

It's an average sort of feel.

Guys like you apparently fail to see just how average you are here.

Man, it must have been devastating for Hitler. All he ever wanted was to be a painter, then found out that the only thing he really knew how to do was kill Jews.

He sought to create, but knew only how to destroy.

>>5229025
Damn, you win and I am artistically illiterate.

inb4 everyone complaining ITT listens to rap or rock music

Kehinde Wiley thread? This guy's stuff is pretty cool. Although I might get weird looks for having it on my wall.

>>5228988
>http://news.artnet.com/market/4chan-conceptual-artwork-reaches-90000-on-ebay-71466

Brilliant and disturbing.

>>5229043
Nigga be rockin dose timbs yo

>>5229043
tbf, he paints it more in that Warhammer-y style. it wouldn't surprise me at all if he were adopting that image by way of Warhammer (which does add several more compelling layers to its reading)

>>5229053
>This guy's stuff is pretty cool.

No it isn't. You're just racist.

>>5229055
Black timbs all up on your stirrups again
Black dick all in your wenches again

>>5229053
yeah I like his stuff. I like especially how his paintings look like they're done in one of those tacky painting programs all the deviantart fanboys/girls and Magic the Gathering illustrators use

>>5228931
Declinists need things to be in a state of degeneracy. It justifies their individual failures.

>>5229053
>>5229043
Reminds me of that brilliant/ridiculous Kanye West video.

>>5229080
...how? because they both have black guys in them? they're nothing alike.

>>5229084

you aren't going to turn this thread into a race war /pol/ calm down

>>5229074
Does that style have a name? I think it's generally done with acrylics and/or airbrushes (actual ones, not computer ones)- gives it a lurid shine.

i don't like this piece of art therefore it's degenerate and causing the decline of western culture

>>5229092
>muh paranoia

i wouldn't be surprised if >>5229080 posted on /pol/.

>>5229084
uh there are similarities also in hyperrealism + baroque + generic classicist signifiers

>>5229043

I know, let it go.

I don't know much art history, but there were plenty of people calling the Renaissance-era art degenerate, right? I mean- all those naked people. And not even naked Christian people, at that.

>>5229101
there are no "baroque" or "generic classicist" signifiers in the wiley kehinde wiley images. and as far as hyperrealism, the kanye video is literally hyperrealism in reverse (photo images trying to look like a painting).

> people ITT defending conceptual art

/lit/ is better than this

>>5229115
>the kanye video is literally hyperrealism in reverse (photo images trying to look like a painting)
Seems to me that's going to meet painting-trying-to-look-like-a-photo somewhere in the middle.

>>5229084
The blackness is part of it, yes. Do you think it's a coincidence that Wiley's paintings feature black guys? Or that a sense of black identity isn't important to Kanye West?

>>5229103
well, not in the way sad neo-nazis do, but there were (actually perhaps somewhat fair) criticisms of renaissance art's indulgence and love of sensuality and extravagance. there was this hard-line priest who started somewhat of a backlash and Botticelli became so ashamed that he destroyed some of his artworks at the end of his life.

also, if you count Mannerism as late-Renaissance, the Church ended up seeing it as too esoteric and corrupted and established what would become Baroque as a visual language that illiterate people could understand narratively and emotionally

>>5229125
What I like about /pol/'s idea of 'degeneracy' is that it was significantly popularised by a Jewish intellectual. A founder of the World Zionist Organisation, no less.

Do any of the detractors of modern art ITT actually make art? Does their interest in art last longer than the time it takes to scroll past the image in the OP?

>>5229115
umm all those ornamental details? and flowers and columns etc? the Napoleon painting is at the Neoclassical/Romantic cusp, but in his version he throws in a bunch of rococo ornamentation/pattern generically signifying extravagance/the aristocratic/high brow. the signifiers are all mixed up but that's probably a good thing.

as far as the hyperrealism in Kanye's videos, yeah I agree with you but that still supports a hyperrealist sensibility/ontology

OP you missed out Piss Christ, or any of the other thousands of attacks on Christianity that people today call art.

>>5228826
>humanity is getting dumber.
oh word bro i'd rather go back to when most people were illiterate too humanity was much better off back then

>>5229165
>literacy = intelligence

So what's that image actually comparing? Realism? Portrayal of the fantastic? Skill? Technique?

>>5229183
Cute animals

>ITT: wah people are experimenting instead of worshiping hyper realistic paintings of the asshole of Plato's anus.

>>5229207
none of the things on the left side of the OP image are hyperrealism

>>5228861
Hitler was not a good painter, his landscapes feel completely flat and his human figures are unexpressive.

>"art" now

looks better. fuck off.

>>5229209
>missing the point
Well aware of that, it's just that the main criticism here is that the artists of the now are somehow shite because they are less "skillful" and instead focus on portraying an emotion or metaphysical concept. Hilarious, they only see the meaning of things if it is pointed out to them.

Not that I'm insulting old art, I'm hardly a connoisseur of refined tastes. However it's just bitchery about a so called decline whenever there were always bitches who engaged in whoredoms, and people who lived as shite.

I suppose such individuals just want to bash in the brains of faggots while appearing to be educated and erudite. Hilarious, as they are a living example of the cracker minstrel show.

>>5229197
Good, aren't they? My favourite thing about them is there's no "tradition" of making things like them, unlike the people who decorated Grecian Urns and similar objects, the artist had to research and invent his own technique.
http://santani.deviantart.com/gallery/
Same goes for this girl
http://wood-splitter-lee.deviantart.com/
A lot of these ones are posable - so she's not only created something with a believable shape, like a boring old statue, but they have texture, fur, light-diffusing skin and their limbs bend realistically.
Then we have Ron Mueck's stuff
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/10/the-hyperrealistic-sculptures-of-ron-mueck/100606/
Realistic human sculptures in far greater detail and accuracy than anything from the past.
And then we have all these hyper-realist painters, the works of some of whom are indistinguishable from photographs.
http://www.paulrobertspaintings.co.uk/
http://www.robertobernardi.com/pagine/paintings.html
http://www.photorealism.com
http://alyssamonks.com
http://www.gregorythielker.com/Images/images.html
http://www.diegogravinese.com/site2/paintings/
Very few of which are on the same boring theme of cherubs and women with faintly glowing skin.

These are just not "modern" art (mostly). OP is basically the guy getting angry about the fact that the literary world isn't talking about things like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea any more. He has no understanding of contemporary art history so he's scared and confused by the fact no one is writing Hardy Boys novels any more.

>>5229228
> the artists of the now are somehow shite because they are less "skillful" and instead focus on portraying an emotion or metaphysical concept

You missed the point.

>>5229094
as far as I can tell, no (I've been trying to figure that out for a while actually).

the thing is it's an aesthetic/approach that is completely in the domain of applied/commercial/fan art, created and consumed by millenial gamer/anime/internet types with no interest in making Art, so they haven't recognized or critiqued it as its own style/look yet (it really just developed accidentally through evolving taste filtered through the effects of certain painting software).

and yeah most of it's awful kitsch garbage. as always there's potential and some interesting stuff occasionally, but unlike a lot of other popular/folk/subcultural arts there's really for the most part surprising lack of vitality or anything to find of note here, like the drawing/painting equivalent of online slashfiction. I could write for days on why most of it doesn't work but I'm not going to go into that - certain secrets of the craft imo need to remain a mystery because those who deserve to know will

>>5229232
Thats for that, was gonna ask for some links to some of these.

>>5229183
like I'm going to take a person's opinions on art seriously when they use fonts like THAT

>>5229228
>Well aware of that

then why did you use the term?

>>5229244
I didn't change the fonts.

>>5229233
Sorry, I am not good at expressing myself.

The point here is that they don't care about art at all. If you disagree with me, then point out the point for me instead.

>>5229227
nah

>>5228793
Modern art as degeneracy is just another symptom of the JOO HATERS. The JOO HATERS are like little boys, first time using a hammer.

Everything looks like a nail! Smash everything! Watch the hammer's destructive force at work!

Everything looks like a nail!

If you are a JOO HATER every problem looks like it was done by EVIL JOOS. You find a way to see a Jew, or a crypto-Zionist, in everything. Most politicians and business leaders who talk about Zion, or about Christianity, or Judeo-Christians ruling the world, or about the evils of Islam -- they're posing! They're saying what they think will rile up people who listen to and believe Jerry Falwell. Or Klansmen. Or Birchers. Or anyone who likes to blame those evil ____________s. (pick your favorite demon to fill in the blank)

The people who post here with their Zionism fears, their EVIL JOOS theories -- they are sad. They created a Boogeyman and now they fear the Boogeyman.

When they get thrown in jail by a hispanic National Guardsman who's never entered a church, mosque or temple, nor read the Bible or Qu'ran or Torah, nor ever had a religious thought in his life -- they'll be calling him a Zionist Jew, calling him Hymie, while being dragged off to a detention center run by a guy named Symington Winthorpe, a 4th generation Yale legacy with a clean WASP lineage going back to the Mayflower, who hates Jews.

>>5229260
>>>/pol/

>>5229245
I use the term because they worship technicalities above style or meaning.

Their like dorks who masturbate to an extremely detailed replicas of the Starfleet Enterprise, while shitting on modern art.

>>5229236
(same poster here)...

or what I was referring to is that weird Corel aesthetic you see in sci fi and fan art over on the draw board here on 4chan, or in the 'epic monsters' pics sometimes posted on /x/. I wasn't talking about that shiny pop look to this guy's paintings (which can fall under a lot of different areas of contemporary styles), although I would connect his look to a lot of these kitsch influences

precursors to the aesthetic would be '80s airbrush art (on t-shirts, vans), trapper keeper illustrations, a fantasy/sci fi aesthetic increasingly removed attempts at historical/futuristic verisimilitude moving into variations on its own stylistic precedence (think Warhammer, Magic the Gathering, Warcraft and obviously all anime/manga)

>>5229260
You are so persecuted! My heart bleeds for you...

>>5229211
yeah, they're so lifeless and boring that I'd almost feel sorry for him if he hadn't turned into what he did. I've seen so many kids like him in art, wondering why nobody's impressed by their well-drafted, perfectly-realistic renderings. they just don't get it.

>>5229307
>well drafted

Hitler can't into perspective

>>5228793
>believing an opinion could be classified as obvious
>believing cultures can degrade (or upgrade)
>believing in evil

Go back to /pol/ play with the other kids, the adults are talking

>>5229307

enormous cunt

>>5229260

Since you're already talking about the jews... it sure seems like they had a great influence on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ4CeNu6Vr4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Rosenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Greenberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Rales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Lauder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Broad
...

>>5229329
*grins*

>>5229330
You're totally oblivious.

>>5229330
goddamn that picture is funny. the red stars of david over every picture, the red ALL JEWS with an exclamation point.

10/10 kek'd and kek'd again

>>5229330
>that video
>implying formal complexity is gone in abstract art
>needing human subjects to experience human feelings

>>5229338

haha seriously, antisemites are almost hilariously lame

>>5229333
y u

>>5229336

How do? Explain yourself. Since you cannot deny that the jews had a great influence on the propagation of modern art you're now trying to portray me as a fool?

>>5229345
I can't explain the look of colours to a man who was blind from birth.

>>5229344
tbh I realized how mean I was sounding there but you know that thing where you get that (very human) perverse thrill as you suddenly feel compelled in the moment to say something as brutally as possible online for no good reason

>>5229042
Man, it must have been devastating for Roosevelt. All he ever wanted was to be a lawyer, then found out that the only thing he really knew how to do was intern and kill Japs.

He sought justice, but only knew how to destroy.

>>5229330
ALL!
JEWS

>>5229051
This is my first post in this thread but I do agree with the sentiments that art, like most culture, is degrading. I personally listen to classical some but a lot of norse and celtic folk music as well. Faun is one of my favorite artists.

>>5229042
>"I KNOW VIRTUALLY NOTHING REGARDING ADOLF HITLER AND NATIONAL SOCIALISM, AND I BELIEVE THE ZIONIST VERSION HISTORY."

– YOU.

>>5229343
Yes, those mangled Palestinians are certainly lame.

What a tasteless comment.

>>5229042
so tru :(

>>5229347

How convenient!

>>5229338

Well, which of those are not jewish? It should be attention-getting that so many are.

>>5229364
what kind of mental dysfunction do you suffer from anyway? you're an odd one, but I've always admired that you at least have an aesthetic.

>>5229347
If you were intelligent you could

>>5229380
>2009
>not knowing that Rei is autistic

>>5229390
>>2009
That made me laugh out loud for some reason

>>5229379
yeah, they're all jews but it's a little over-dramatic and corny. i can just hear this playing in the background:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7Op86ox9g

>>5229359
>>5229343
>>5229338
>>5229336

sapere aude!

>>5229366
I wouldn't compare what one might maybe describe as the 'anti-semitism' of people suffering in the complex Israel/Gaza situation firsthand with that weird global, viral antisemitism-as-convenient-scapegoat thing used to manipulate frustrated poor people

>>5229390
well yeah, I've heard that a lot actually but it seems to be a unique case (unusually right-brained/visual in some ways)

>>5229400

It may be over-dramatic and corny, yes, but what counts is the knowledge it equips.

>>5229408
Yes, it is a very 'complex' situation indeed! /s
There is nothing wrong with Israel defending itself!!! Why all the haters?!?!1

I don't fully understand people defending modern art.

They have a set of bullet point defenses
>Photography killed realism
>It's all subjective!

Yet when they get proven wrong , that art indeed can be judged by a calculable criteria, they stick their fingers in their ears and can't accept defeat, can't accept the fact that there is truth and facts in the world, and continue rolling around in their ignorance.

It's like a religion.

Degeneracy is a religion.
Duchamp, Delillo, Laurie Penny, Joyce, Pynchon and Kesha are its saints.

Heh.

>>5229424

amen.

gud post

>>5229424
Alright faggot, prove art can be judged by a calculable criteria

>>5228793
Born in le wrong generation

>>5229424
>that art indeed can be judged by a calculable criteria
What do you mean by this?

>>5229422
oh so you're one of those people who expects Israel to just sit there and let people toss torpedos at their civilians all day without doing something about it.

I'm am not at all happy about how Israel has been going about some of these little campaigns but if you think they should just passively take it, fuck you!

>>5229422
>the only way i can convince myself that i'm right is to put words in the mouths of others

>>5229424
this is the first time i've heard anyone mention duchamp and kesha in the same sentence. is kesha even relevant still?

>>5229416
welp, time to start goosestepping.

>>5229436
skill and mastery

like you can judge a book by the language used

>>5228915
>muh eiher or fallacy

>>5229459
>le weapon manufacturer hands

>>5229457
Art can be objectively gauged on a scale of 1-10

All modern art I've seen falls below a 3

>>5229424
Look at how this post tries so hard to convey knowledge, yet it avoids making any arguments and instead refers to arguments that other people supposedly make (though nobody in this thread made those arguments).

It is a convenient distraction tactic to ensure that the whining (which justifies failure) can continue. "See? Aren't these arguments terrible? That must somehow mean that modern art *is* degenerate!"

>>5229416
Huh I didn't know there was an "Uber Rabbi"

>>5229459
>oh so you're one of those people who expects Israel to just sit there and let people toss torpedos at their civilians all day without doing something about it.

but they haven't been successful at destroying israel. israel has a right to fight back only when it has been obliterated!

>>5229470
>he thinks that's an either/or "fallacy"

>>5229424
>that art indeed can be judged by a calculable criteria

the only 'calculable criteria' are certain laws of design and composition that apply (and are at work) just as much in contemporary and modern art as they are in classical and other old styles. and they're hardly the only thing making it a great work, regardless of era.

>>5228915
Sure, Queen, The Rolling Stones, Johnny Cash, ect...

>>5229459

Israel has a large defence system that can take down all of these "rockets". They also have control of the borders of Gaza. The "rockets" that Hamas uses has had so few casualties, it's not even funny. Most of them are home made and unsophisticated since they have neither a functioning state or outside military aid (like Israel). They fire them out of desperation.

These "rockets" that can barely do anything that can mostly be defended against that are caused from oppression do not justify what Israel has done in the slightest. They've been destroying UN schools, they invaded Gaza, they've killed children. It's completely unequal.

Its not an accurate comparison because photography and film gutted realistic art.

>>5229477
How is this done? What is the methodology?

>>5228793

Take all yr people standing around looking either bored as fuck or lost in constipated concentration and get the fuck out.

>>5229485
so they should sit there and wait for some of the projectiles to get through their defenses and kill more civilians first before they can fight back? ridiculous.

>>5229464

>welp, time to start goosestepping

What do you want to imply with that?

Got anything but ad hominems to offer?

>>5229496
Explaining it to you would be like explaining what a piano does to a deaf man

I started to type a response but then realized what obvious bait this was.

>>5229461
>>5229459
You guys have me all wrong. Michael Savage told me that as a poor Christian man my duty to Jesus is to defend Israel to my death.

>>5229491
>hey fire them out of desperation.
no, they fire them to get this exact response from Israel in order to turn the world's opinion against them. and idiots trying to come across as peace-makers fall for it.

>>5228793
>comparing the best work made over millennia to some popular works from within a few decades
nice try

>>5229503
Can you point me to sources, or is this something you made up?

>>5229436
>>5229457
There virtually an infinite amount of ways you could develop a criteria in which to grade a piece of art.

For example, you could create a grading scheme that comprises things like "skill" and under skill you can grade the amount of dexterity it takes to accomplish such amazing brush strokes/chisels/etc--and factor that in.

That's just one component, you can measure it in very many different ways, also depending on the art as well.

There are a myriad of criteria you could come up with, all that measure purely objective observations that could be proved with scientific and mathematical means.

The subjective components are important too, but you guys want me to demonstrate if it is possible at all to evaluate a work of art in unbiased and objective ways.

There is, and I'm sure they would bring in positive results.

Go ahead, try to debate me.

You'll lose, or resort to a red herring veering our argument into semantics or argue the nature of subjectivity vs objectivity.

That's the debating style of cowards.

Remember stick to the topic under discussion.

>>5229477
>objectively
How exactly do you even measure the quality of art in the first place. You just say that it's 3/10 without even giving a reason why.

>>5229503
>In other words, I have no idea

>>5229479
You actually sound like a christian fundementalist.

Self-destructive hedonism is a religion I swear.

>>5229503
You mean, saw the legs off and use the vibrations on the floor?

>>5228793
>"Then"
>From XVth century to 1902

>Now
>2012, 13 and 14

Implying there was no shitty artist before the 20th century.

Implying "now is shit" was not always true, and "it was better before always false"

>>5229491
it makes sense that israel is on edge when the philosophy of the group who runs palestine begins and ends with a hatred of the jews.

and yes, they haven't hurt israel in any significant way, but not due to lack of trying.

and no, i don't think israel is perfect.

>>5229518
>You actually sound like a christian fundementalist.

Do you think that words are magic and that you can make all sorts of goofy bullshit come true if you write it out?

>Self-destructive hedonism

Is that what you're sweepingly dismissing all modern art as?

>>5229506
You ignored the fact that Israel has control of the borders, military aid and infrastructure and that the rockets are small and ineffectual.

And yeah, like the world is trying to be a peace keeper when they do nothing about Israel continually breaking international law and the US keeps giving it military aid and support no matter what they do.

What would you do if you were in an open air prison that's densely populated and were being oppressed?

>tfw /lit/ can't tell the difference between Objectivity and Subjectivity

>>5229485
Correctamundo!! And they will have even more of a right to fight back once 'Palestine' (a made up land and people, btw) is finally completely repossessed!!

>>5229512
>all that measure purely objective observations that could be proved with scientific and mathematical means.

mathematical means for certain compositional principles: sort of. scientific? ha!

>>5229512
I'm not denying that you could measure for formal criteria in a work of art. However, I've never heard of a legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific study rating art on a scale of 1 to 10.

:>>5229523
>Implying "now is shit" was not always true, and "it was better before always false"

You degenerate cultists always try using this defense for why art is shitty in these times.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10196489/iPad-generation-will-have-smaller-vocabulary-study-claims.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2179432/All-songs-DO-sound-Modern-pop-louder-uses-chords-classic-albums-Fifties-Sixties.html

Here is objective scientific data showing that people today have a stunted vocabulary and listen to music with fewer melodic variations.

Check mate.

>>5229512
>There virtually an infinite amount of ways you could develop a criteria in which to grade a piece of art.

And still not one way that values the abstract?

>For example, you could create a grading scheme that comprises things like "skill" and under skill you can grade the amount of dexterity it takes to accomplish such amazing brush strokes/chisels/etc--and factor that in.

This just in: Ortiz named greatest painter of all time

>>5229528
Objectivity refers to which is from the outside of the self, where as subjectivity refers to which originates from within.

>>5229524

The Zionists' philosophy is literally ethnic cleansing. They've been trying to get rid of them since they started this movement and history shows that as they've been taking more and more land and cornering the Palestinians more and more. And Palestine has an ideology that "begins and ends with a hatred of the jews"? I'd hate a group that'd do that to me too.

So they haven't hurt Israel but their intention justifies Israeli oppression? We can't hurt everyone who just has bad intentions. And the Israelis have bad intentions and actually carry them out.

>>5229500
i was being sarcastic.

i was making fun of the kind of mindset (very widespread right now) which dictates that israel shouldn't fight back because hamas hasn't been successful in destroying israel.

>>5229512
>There virtually an infinite amount of ways you could develop a criteria in which to grade a piece of art.

You do realize that admitting infinite possibilities for criteria would allow for systems where modern art can objectively be better than classical art, right?

>>5229512
you're such a fedora stereotype you're verging on becoming art yourself.

>>5229537
>dailymail

okaaaay there.

You know that most people of the magical land before the 20th century were shit eating peasants who died by their kings or capitalist overlords? There will always be a divide in language between the profane and the elite. The rich and the poor.

>>5229527
as long as Hamas insists on attacking Israel, Israel can continue fucking them up. every death is on Hama's heads because they knew exactly what would happen and wanted this. fuck them, completely their fault.

>>5229545
Palestine shouldn't fight back because we haven't taken all of the land yet.

>>5229549
There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, none of them are 3

>>5229535
>>5229536
I sense fear on your part.

How could science be used to formulate a criteria to judge art? Easy.

Let's go back to what I said before.

Let's for example take a very difficult painting technique for a certain work. We then get the artist to explain in detail how he accomplishes said masterful technique (a technique he can do effortlessly). We get him to explain how he learned it, and how to accomplish it.

We then use SCIENCE to create an experiment whereby we see just how difficult it is for other people to master the same technique.

We then measure how long it takes for mastery to be accomplished amongst the test subject. Mastery may not even be possible. Competence may not even be possible. The technique could be nigh impossible to replicate or learn, it could be something innate only a few have the inherent skill to accomplish.

THAT, ladies and gentleman, is how you use science to measure the artistic merit of a piece of art.

I await your submission to my intelligence.

>>5229545
ah, sorry.

>>5229424
>UR DJEDJENERATE

There you go, babbys first contrarianism

>>5229537
The first one is pure conjecture. The psychiatrist seems to be making an anecdotal claim when he says people talk less now, and that's more sociology than psychiatry anyway.
Otherwise, the article is actually about the importance of verbal communication, not what people are doing.

The second one is irrelevant because the average person listens to a lot more than just pop music in these fancy modern times.

>>5229537
>Here is objective scientific data showing that people today have a stunted vocabulary and listen to music with fewer melodic variations.

The first article is a prediction with no study (= no data) and not about the present generation, it is a prediction about how children in the future will learn. And it was published as an article because it knows that kind of thing will reel in dumbasses like you.

The study from the second article tells us what we already know, that pop music is simpler than classical music. What you're trying to convey with that, I have no idea.

>>5229555
>Appeals to authority (questioning dailymail instead of the scientific articles they reference)
>Non-Squitor (logic does not follow in the fact that you bring up illiterate peasants to our current conversation--Illiterate peasants enjoyed the plays of Shakespeare remember?)

You're getting smoked son.

>>5229556

That doesn't make any sense. Nothing ever justifies civilian casualties, ever. Maybe you can make the argument for military targets but even then, Hamas barely has a state and Israel has a large state and a large military, control of the borders and everything else.

The fact is Israel could solve these problems without so much violence but it doesn't. Instead it takes any pretence to ethnic cleanse Gaza.

If Hamas hadn't fought before, Gaza would still have Israeli settlements and have more land chipped away. What Gaza is going through is because they're trying to not be oppressed not for any other reason.

You realize how unequal the situation is don't you?

>>5229558
Fortunately, criteria for grading art isn't delimited by any similar bounds so your analogy is shit.

>>5229572
>>5229576
Here's a better source for ya then (about reduced vocab):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/vocabulary-test-results-us_n_2249647.html

What do you have now degenerates?

Gonna try getting into semantics? You're greatly losing this little debate of ours.

>>5229578
The current generation have access to thesauruses and are able to look up information through the internet.

The current generation is also more than likely to have some sort of college education.

>>5229556
>>5229579

Picture related

>>5229578
>You're getting smoked son.

Nah, you're getting your ass handed to you: >>5229572
>>5229576

>>5229559
hahaha that sounds so boring and autistic and pointless.

>>5229591
>>5229589
Rekt boi.

>>5229579
>>5229556
Goddamn this is making my brain swell up to the inner walls of my skull.

>>5229593
>losing debate
>better call him autistic

Not even mad, you degenerates are all the same.

>>5229579
>>5229556
Can you take the off-topic discussion elsewhere?
>>5229559
That's an interesting idea, but surely you see how it wouldn't be possible for any art where the artist and their contemporaries aren't alive.
I still don't see any serous scientists publishing a study ranking art from 1 to 10.

>>5229589
What do you think this actually proves? They're comparing tests down three years apart.

>>5228793
>there's more actual kitsch on the left
>for reals

>>5229556
Yeah I don't understand why they don't just give us the land either. Until they do give it to us, every Palestinian death is completely their own fault.

>>5229602
>but surely you see how it wouldn't be possible for any art where the artist and their contemporaries aren't alive.

Not true at all.
There is something called reverse engineering.
That task in itself provides viable objective data to judge a piece of art.

Just as you can evaluate the craftsmanship of a chair by a master carpenter, so too can you evaluate the craftsmanship of an artist.


>I still don't see any serous scientists publishing a study ranking art from 1 to 10.
It could be easily done, but nobody would be willing to fund such a thing.

In our capitalist system the only thing that matters is the maximum amount of profit the the least amount of labour. You can even see that principle at work in academia.

>>5229559
>more difficult = better

go to bed, yngwie

>>5229540

literally ethnic cleansing? israel isn't rounding Palestinians up and executing them. In fact, israel has a large number of palestinian citizens and they aren't relegated to ghettos. Many of them have good jobs and even work in the government.

and it's more than just intent when you're lobbing rockets at israel. moreover, peaceful co-existence is very difficult when your neighbor vows to destroy you the moment he gets the chance.

>>5229618
So...you're admitting defeat eh?

Good to know.
Difficulty is a perfectly viable and objective criteria to use in order to judge a piece of art.

>>5229615
How could you reverse engineer something if "the technique could be nigh impossible to replicate or learn, it could be something innate only a few have the inherent skill to accomplish."

You also have a hilarious misunderstanding of what studies can objectively say about how long it takes for any person to master a skill, etc. The central limit theorem couldn't possibly apply.

>>5229589
>Overall, most states stagnated, but average students in Arkansas, Indiana and Iowa did worse in 2011 than in 2009.

>Lower in three states when compared in the span of 2 years.

K.

Of course modern art is shittier. It should be. Yet it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with degeneracy.

Only the best of the artwork of the past managed to survive till now. Modern art is just starting to undergo the filter of time. Just as happened in the past, current art celebrities will be forgotten while little known artists will have a post-mortem glory in a century or so.

Note that i am not naive enough to rule out a degradation. For example there was a clear degradation of arts in ancient Rome from the first the third century. Still it's only possible to assess the quality of the art of an age and make fair comparison way after it's gone and the art it produced has been filtered.

>>5229618
he probably thinks yngwie is artistically streets ahead of beethoven and mozart and wagner and bach and so on.

i can just imagine him sitting there listening to a malmsteen song, going: ''wow, this guy really goes places!''

What is truly degenerative is conservativeness and all of which their ilk bind man into some sort of archaic dying root in which the well spring of vitality is lost to them. They parrot their holy scriptures like fundamentalist abrahamites bombing uncircumcised cocks. Yet they will not understand that inside of their soul is a rotting husk in which shite won't be able to grace their fields and that no crops will flourish underneath their works. Most of which do not even have the works to which man of today can find inspiration and only have the basic relationship to the work of their pastman by some sort of generic trait that they have with them. Truly these men are degenerative, as time goes on and they become fuller and more sturdy in the face of time, not tasting the sweet breath of eroding air.

>>5229623
>Difficulty is a perfectly viable and objective criteria to use in order to judge a piece of art.

Of course it is, but that would only allow you to say that the piece is objectively more difficult to make, and that objectively better at being more difficult to produce.

>>5229629
You're simply nitpicking my methodology with stupid questions that you're either too lazy or too stupid to answer yourself, but require me to go on lengthy explantions. You're eventually going to exhaust my patience and time with repeatedly asking these stupid questions and then claim victory when I give up.

This is what is called a one-way hash argument.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One-way_hash_argument

It's used especially by creationists, climate change deniers, libertarians, and degenerates like yourself!

:D You're so told boyo.

>>5229619
Again you're ignoring the unequal character of this conflict. Israel has a state, a military, control of the borders. Gaza does not and neither does the West Bank. If you look at casualties too, its unequal with Israel killing many more civilians than Gaza.

Yes ethnic cleansing. Look at the Bedouins that they're moving out in the north that they originally said could stay. Look how they're killing Palestinians in large numbers on the flimsiest of contexts. Or how they allow any Jew to get citizenship and have a "right" of return but no Palestinian. Or all the homes and property they've destroyed of Palestinians or taken. They would never allow all Palestinians to live in Israel or for one state to exist in present conditions because their whole point is to have a Jewish majority state, something that requires getting rid of a lot of Palestinians. Which they're doing which is ethnic cleansing.

Again, the rockets are home-made and ineffective. They barely do a thing and that justifies what Israel does? Poor Israel is so afraid of the superpower Gaza with its large military and international aid. That's illogical.

Your last paragraph also exactly describes the Israeli position. They always bring up Israel's right to defend itself but what about Gaza's right to defend itself? Do the Israelis acknowledge the Palestinians' right to exist? Why are token words more important than lives?

Again the situation is unequal. Why do you think the UN keeps criticizing Israel and barely says a thing about Gaza doing wrong?

>>5229623
>Difficulty is a perfectly viable and objective criteria to use in order to judge a piece of art.

Why?

>>5229644
Listen, you lost the argument, admit defeat and go on with your life. It's ok to be wrong sometimes, and it's even more ok to admit to yourself that there are people out there in the world smarter than you.

>>5229657
>semantic argument bait
Maybe if you keep asking why, you'll win our little debate!

I'm not sucker enough to fall for a one-way hash argument.

>>5229592
and who started it? and who keeps continuing it?

how do you people fall for this?

>>5228793
>217 posts and 40 image replies omitted. Click here to view.

>>5229661
Why do you value a piece of art for the difficulty it took to make?

What do you gain looking at a piece of art which was particularly difficult to make?

>>5229649
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One-way_hash_argument

I love how that article gives absolutely no criteria for what it's complaining about other than "it looks intelligible, but it's really stupid!"

The reason I keep asking you questions is because I'm trying to get you to see the gaping holes in your ideas. As far as fundamentalism goes, you're the one who is clinging to ideas of the past with no exceptions, whereas I appreciate both classical and modern art.

The dominant threads of conversation in this thread are:
Israel-Palestine Conflict
Objectivity in art criticism
both as debated by an autist/troll and an oblivious straight man

Why do I come here?

s-so nobody read bluebeard?

>>5229660
>not the person who you are responding to there

Would an artpiece drawn by the clasping vaginal muscles on an airbrush against a wall in a penis like fashion without rest that produces nothing more than the inane scribblings of a babbling moronic child be considered to be an objectively better piece of work, because the woman in question was gifted with vaginal dexterity?

>>5229661
Clarify why you care about difficulty faggot

>>5229675
He cares about difficulty because /v/ and GYP's Chris Wagar taught him that all game critics need to be expert DDR grandmasters and to have gotten through NG+10 at level on in Dark Souls.

>>5229649
Nitpicking on methodology is kind of what scientists do.

I don't know why you keep harping on "victory" and "defeat". We're having a discussion, not measuring dicks.

>>5229665
Who started it? How about the foreign colonizers that came from foreign countries to live in a land they had no personal roots in.

Who keeps continuing it? How about the state that keeps encroaching on Palestinian land with settlements, and closes them in with borders they control and don't allow free trade or for Palestinian fishers to go very far to fish.

Why are people so illogical to think that Israel has any legitimacy when they were transplanted into the land and caused all these problems for the original inhabitants.

>>5229669
Alright, if you want to get abstract, we can get abstract.

>Why do you value a piece of art for the difficulty it took to make?
Why? Rarity.

>What do you gain looking at a piece of art which was particularly difficult to make?
A glimpse of something created which is truly special (special in every single sense of the word--especially from an objective point of view).

>>5229675
He used difficulty as an example among other possible examples of objectively grading art.

Which is fine. You can set the determinants and grade accordingly, but the grades and criteria will have nothing to do with what some other people are talking about when they talk about art. And he himself admits this when he says that there is more than one way to objectively grade art.

>>5229686
>Why? Rarity.

Conceptual artists would have a field day with this criteria.

>>5229673
Ok, so what you're doing is taking the logic of my hypothetical methodology for measuring objective artistic merit, and used it in a very erroneous way.

It's tantamount to using an instrument or tool for purposes and contexts it's not meant for, like using the handle of a screw driver to nail in a nail.

You're committing a fallacy my good man, the name of which escapes me.

It's the same when people make fun of deductive reasoning by making up ridiculous scenarios in variation of

If all As are Bs
And all Bs are Cs
Then all As are Cs

Hamas are scholars and gentlemen and the Holocaust never happened! Alright, maybe *something* happened, but the numbers are like totally wrong! Six million? Yeah right, try six hundred!

>>5229700
Remember, rarity implies a difficulty in replication.

But yes, this concept can be ripe for abuse by idiots.

>>5229717
Association fallacy, which I haven't done anyways.

Are you saying that it isn't art then, of which that isn't the highest value because of it's relative rarity?

>>5229685
most Palestinians are actually the descendents of Jews who were forcefully converted to Islam centuries ago. and everyone knows (but often don't want to acknowledge due to either Islam or atheism or a modernist/progressivist contrarianism) the long-standing history of Israel being a Jewish homeland. it's trollish and dishonest of Muslims to not recognize the sacred Jewish connection to the area - especially considering they stole their religious basis from the Jews and call it their own.

on that note, imagine if anyone else - religious or secular - had since occupied Mecca... it would at least make sense if Muslims would obviously be interested in regaining the place as a holy site. just as people are sympathetic when Native Americans attempt to keep some of their sacred sites and relics, maybe it's profoundly cuntish and unreasonable to expect (in some cases, ancient) cultural identities to just forget and discard their most meaningful and important sites and structures because you want to force your own much more ephemeral and faulty ideology on them that they have no obligation to buy into. of course, there will be conflicts, between you and them, with each other. that's life.

Though there is good art being made today though, it's getting horrifically overshadowed by bullshit.

>>5229729
That is the worst argument in the world. Mormons don't have a sacred right to wherever they were founded after they moved and lived in Utah for such a long time. It doesn't matter that Jews lived there centuries ago or whether Palestinians are part Jewish or part Martian.

None of that justifies one group of people oppressing another. Religion shouldn't play a role in this and as much as people emphasize it so much, it doesn't play as much of a role as people make it out to. Many Christian Palestinians for example are just as oppressed as the Muslim Palestinians. Before Zionism, Christian, Jewish and Muslim Palestinians coexisted just fine.

Most Jews are secular or even atheists. Many religious Jews are against Zionism and Palestinians though very Muslim are not acting as they do out of religion as much as they are the political situation.

However religious identities and sacred places are important. Jews should have access to all of the holiest places of Judaism just as any other religion should have access to their sacred places. If Jews moved into Jerusalem for religious reasons, great but that's completely different than them taking every bit of the land that was inhabited by another group of people.

Religion can't justify colonization.

Here is what every goddamn discussion about Art on 4chan boils down to -- without fail:

-If I like it: it's art.
-If I don't like it: it's not art.

Every -- fucking -- time.

When will idiots get it in their brainpans that art is art is art is art regardless if you like it; art doesn't mean good.

Bad pizza is still pizza; bad movies are still movies; bad art is still art.

>>5229728
Alirght, let's actually open up the guts of what you're putting forward and its implications.

In my original description of using science as a means of objectively evaluating art, I used the example of a painter with a brilliant technique. In our scientific study, this artist was to outline how to accomplish said technique, thereby using his methodology to achieve the desired technique.

What that scenario didn't account for, was the possibility of being able to achieve the same results, but with a different technique. In my hypothetical situations, it was made obvious that the technique and its result was only possible to accomplish in one way of doing it.

Now, with your dexterious vagina example, we could easily replicate the results using a different technique, this making the use of her vagina a stupid way of achieving artistic merit.

An apt comparison would be to use your nose hole or asshole to play the flute.

This reminds me very much about Aristotle's Niomachean ethics, there is actually a right and wrong way about performing a task.

But then you could say "well, some people without arms use their mouth to paint, with pretty impressive results, and extremely high difficult"--this tasteful opposition shoulld have been the one you used.

Anyway!

My answer in the end is that there should be other objective criteria in conjunction with the difficulty/skill criteria to circumvent these dilimena's form happening.

>>5229760
>art doesn't mean good.
No, art is craft made with skill and knowledge.

Equally bad science is not science, nor is bad literature, literature, both definition was an inherit appeal to skill and tradition.

Equally, bad pizza is not really pizza, since a pizza burned to charcoal is not a pizza and neither is a pizza that is topped with plastics.

>>5229639
But conducting an orchestra is much more difficult than playing a single instrument largely popularized by manchildren. Even looking at just a piece for a single pianist, the third movement of the moonlight sonata is more difficult than anything Malmsteen ever created.

>>5229771
>No, art is craft made with skill and knowledge.

That's just a Greek definition anyway, which while a good one is culturally defined, and you guys shouldn't argue semantics. Who cares what you term art and what you don't term art? It is pretty immaterial.

Instead you should agree with me about Palestine. Now that is material.

>>5229731
>>5229737
you call this "good art"?

>>5229781
I like the second one, however to be fair, it is part of a comic book.

>>5229781
Lemme guess, 2/10 wouldn't bang?

>>5229775
So you're saying that Beethoven is better than Yngwie Malmsteen because his music is more difficult? Very dubious.

>>5229780

Art is defined within culture.

>>5229800
Well everything is defined in culture, that's not my point. My point is saying a thing is art or not art is pointless because it is only a question of definitions which change based on culture. However asking if art is good or bad is a valid question because there is good and bad objectively as well as culturally.

>>5228822
All the modern art in that pic is still better than most medieval art.

>>5229717
>my good man
*tips fedora*

>>5229798
No. I'm saying that it is better, but it is also more difficult in addition to that.

>>5228912
Why don't they paint it themselves, them?
Shouldn't people be free to do what they want?

>>5229330
OH MAN POL STARTED TO DROP DEM LINKS
OH MAN HERE COMES THE REFUTATION
OH FUCK BRACE YOURSELVES
THE PILL IS RED AND THE PILL IS BIG
AIM: YO ASS
PURE REFUTATION: DEFUSING ARGUMENTS HAS BEGUN
IT'S TIME, IT'S HAPPENING
OH LORD WATCH OVER US ALL

>>5229826
The funny thing about early Christian art is that it looks like that bullshit even though most of the artists were capable of working in the style of the late Roman Empire.

So it was entirely down to the fact that tastes changed rather than that skill declined.

>>5229754
Indeed nothing justify anything. Only might makes right.

>>5228793
I agree with this pictute but the one on the upper left just looks like a robot face and isn't too bad.

>>5229760
not according to our lord and savior Zizek. coke isn't come unless it's cold. we form the criteria for certain metaphysical objects. sure, warn coke is the same mix of sugar and water and so on, but it's not real coke if it's not cold. just as art isn't real art unless (reason from modern or classical stand point). what really is happening is, in a postmodern world, we can't agree which art is best (I.e. what is true art). and we never will because objectivity in aesthetics is a bunch of bullshit

>>5228861
What a stupid fucking image.

No, it's not like art schools had stricter standards back then and Hitler was highly mediocre even for an architectural painter, and those artist must have been accepted purely for their skill in non traditional art.

>>5229886
that thing is sooo creepy looking