/lit/ - Literature

>>5969870
/lit/ is now /cult/. We all /cult/ists now.

>>5969878
"/Cult/ists"? That sounds like something I can really get behind as long as everyone else is as devoted.

>>5969870
>but /lit/ feels like the apex of cultured internet goers.

>>5969870
>but /lit/ feels like the apex of cultured internet goers.
L O L
O
L

>>5969980
>>5969990
le lit is shit meme

Fuck off, we're not mu, v, or tv. Lit is actually good.

>>5969980
>>5969990
Sorry if my wording didn't tip you off to whether that compliment was sincere or not. Much apologies, friends.

Top tier:
Italian Renaissance
17th century Classical
High tier:
Bolognese Classicism
Rudolfine Mannerism
Pleb tier:
Ugly peasants
Edge tier (or, I just finished art history 101):
El Greco
Caravaggio

>>5970031
>Lit is actually good.

>>5970031
not when it comes to art

>>5972075
Edge tier is Bougereau

>le so detailistic, luk at dem naked womyn, whys is modern art so shit bros XD

>>5969870
art begins with andy warhol, and ends with andy warhol

deal with it

>>5972079
It's more like the followers of Bouguereau today are painters who think the chief virtue of Bouguereau is realistic rendering. But that comes probably because of their modern scope and see mostly the most common trait of pre modern art as painting people well. Bouguereau and other "academics" of his time would probably look at the "realist" painters of today with disdain.

>>5969870

>>5972087
Why would you say something so stupid?

>>5969870
more Greco

>>5972093
CAN IT PAL

>>5969870
Looks like shit

>>5972117
das it mane

>>5969870
>le X board is shit may
>may

>>5972171
yeee boii

>>5972075

It's like you have an aversion to any art that might make you feel something.

>>5972117
Dat Athena striking a Shiva pose

>>5972171
HAHA

>>5972335
Classical art evicts much more feeling from the average viewers soul than any modern masterpiece (and I use the term loosely) ever could. The detailing and realism bring the viewer into a different world that they can relate to more closely than paint splatters.

>>5972087

that's the most ridiculous post I've seen on /lit/ since the Stirner maymay

>>5972117

yo that ho minerva got perky nipples ho clearly got horny cause of all the boinking of that little bastard back there

>>5969870
Some of my favorites:
Rubens
Rembrandt
Bouguereau
Grimshaw
Gérôme
Cabanel
Zurbarán
Renoir
Friedrich

>no mention of David yet
>implying this isn't the zenith of western visual art
do you even spill the blood of tyrants, pleb?

>>5973067
>David
>not Doré

>>5973067
>>5973073
>David
>Dore
>not Ingres
kek top pleb

Favourite artists:
Turner
Monet
Boccioni
Dix
Rothko

>>5973086
What is that shit a fucking rectangle?

>>5973094
Use your eyes m8

>>5973094
Yeah anon, use your eyes.

It's clearly a piece of shit

>>5969870
dude ur on 4chan

>>5973136
pure male fantasy

>>5973138
Haha

>>5973086
>Dix
we already knew dix are your favorite when you mentioned Rothko

PSSSTTTT OP

reddit.com/r/arthistory

>>5973147
Mentioned Dix above!

could anyone post any of their favorite modern pieces pls?

>>5973067
Seeing that in person changed who I am

>>5973158

>>5973158

>>5972931
So, you're saying Chuck Close is ubermensch tier?

>>5973158
modern or contemporary?

>>5973158
2011

>>5972075
Fuck off.

>>5973158
Here's my favorite painting from this decade

>>5972931
>muh detailing
>>5973166
get on my level, chuck

>>5972931
>Classical art evicts much more feeling from the average viewers soul than any modern masterpiece

Since when should we pander to the average viewer?

>>5973185
Classical Art didn't, peasants weren't able to see it, unlike now, unfortunately

Schiele is all you need...

>>5973158
Nicola Samori

>>5972931
The Fault In Our Stars evicts much more feeling from the average readers soul than any modern masterpiece (and I use the term loosely) ever could. The detailing and realism bring the viewer into a different world that they can relate to more closely than bells, bulls, and irish farts.

Odd Nerdrum >>> Picasso hacks

What are some good books about art ? I've already read Benjamin, Boucheron and Arasse and I don't know what I should read...

>>5973227
Gombrich's The Story Of Art is a good place to start. John Berger's Ways Of Seeing is also an essential foundational text.

>>5973191
>Peasants couldn't see classical art

Yeah, they just painted those frescos and stained the glass and sculpted that marble then shut up the church never letting anyone in ever again.

How do I learn to better appreciate art? I can look at Schiele, Caravaggio, or Monet and be able to realize it's aesthetically pleasing, but I've never been profoundly affected by a painting the way poetry or literature can. I've heard that people who really love art can look at their favorite paintings for hours on end just absorbed in it, and it makes me feel a little bad that the best I can do is say "I like it" and move on.

>>5972087
Nice meme faggot, Warhol ruined art.

>>5973274
It takes time, I guess. Read some Schopenhauer or some other philosophy on the aesthetics to help get a deeper appreciation for art. Like anything else, the more you know and the more you have seen, the better you can appreciate it.

Also, make sure to go to art museums and not just look at jpgs or mass-produced art history books. Most paintings do not translate well to reduced size/blotted color, plus you lose texture, smaller details, scale, etc.

>>5973290
This is true. I've always thought that Der Kuss was kinda boring. Then I saw it in Vienna, it was an epiphany...

>>5973264
can't have Auerbach without Kossoff

>>5973274
Yeah, do what >>5973290 said to give it an honest shot.

Even then, if you still aren't into art then maybe it's not your thing. I have the same attitudes to poetry and literature, which is why I predominately read non-fiction, but I can sit there and stare at paintings for hours on end if I let myself.

>>5973274
Look at it after dropping acid. Seriously, it changed my whole perspective on the visual arts.

>>5973153
>>5973360
I really enjoyed Delaroche too
One of my dream is to see pic related in real..unfortunately I'm too poor to go to Paris..

>>5970031
according to /lit/

One of my favorites from Kline

aigh't I'm out

>>5972931

>Classical art evicts much more feeling from the average viewers soul than any modern masterpiece (and I use the term loosely) ever could.

I guess that that's a matter of personal opinion. To me, an over-reliance on Classical motifs is indicative of a lack of inspiration; it might be pleasant to look at (as long as one doesn't look at it for too long), but it fails to evoke in any real emotional response in me.

>The detailing and realism bring the viewer into a different world that they can relate to more closely than paint splatters.

Again, that's a matter of personal opinion. YOU might be able to relate more easily with Neoclassical art on account of its realism, but that very same realism makes it seem cool and distant to me. I find the atomized sensation of pic related much more relevant to my own internal landscape.

>>5973587
>le handsome russian painter face
Malevich a shit

>>5973669

Uh... thanks for contributing?

Saw this and Boston and it really amazed me. Something just clicked.

>>5973466
Love this one.

I don't know shit about art, aside from what I know I like.

>>5973587
How can you relate to something so needlessly simple?

Minimalism/("suprematism") works for design, yes. But for art? It seems like an exercise in art for its own sake, doing what's new to impress people, not for evoking emotion or communicating an idea.

I think the reason more people relate to classical art is because the human forms might trigger mirror neurons, or simply because there is something to interpret without pointlessly over-intellectualizing the work.

>>5973687

Oops, forgot my pic! I wouldn't want to post without also contributing more good art.

>>5973587
Yeah, I went to the National Portrait Gallery today. They had rooms full of Renaissance art: entirely realist paintings of scenes from the Bible or Classical history. It just felt cold to me. Completely removed from anything in my experience.

>>5973587
>To me, an over-reliance on Classical motifs is indicative of a lack of inspiration
And a Black Square is really fucking original.
Kill yourself you fucking retard. If something's retarded, it's putting accent on subjectivity, and shouting "muh opinion". I bet you think killing humans isn't bad either.

>>5973720
>And a Black Square is really fucking original.

In 1915? Yes. Absolutely. It shocked the art world.

>>5973715
why were there bible scenes in the national portrait gallery?

>>5973702

>Dali
>mai nigga

>>5973732
Sorry, I meant National Gallery. I went to both.

>>5973713

>How can you relate to something so needlessly simple?

That's a good question. When I look at a work like Black Square, I get the impression that the artist started with a complete work which communicated a specific emotion or sensation, and then proceeded to remove any and every superfluity, until all that was left was a portrait of a sensation.

This might not sound rational enough for you, but then again, art isn't meant to be entirely rational, is it?

>>5973737
which realistic paintings didn't you care for?
all the early renaissance ones in the sainsbury wing aren't that realistic at all, they're pretty striking in how weird and intense they are before people really started caring about perspective and everything is covered in gold

i'd associate what you're talking about more with classicism if anything

you all have such entry level art taste.

>>5973756

In that case, you'd better be sure to post your entire art folder. Culture us, anon!

>>5973744
Doesn't the sensation inhere in parts of the work that get stripped away when each representational component is regressively removed?

>>5973767

That depends on whether the features that were removed added something of their own to the piece or just reiterated the overall feeling - or if they just served to muddle the work. For me, the virtue of minimalism is that it creates an intensity of feeling that would be impossible if one were to obscure the few core features with the addition of needless detail.

>>5973793
I think detail gives a piece character. Each brushstroke and form is unique. I think sterilising a piece by removing anything human from it does have some appeal but I enjoy works that I can visually read into more.

>>5973823

Oh, I certainly don't want to give the impression that minimal art is the only art that I enjoy. I just think that minimalism has its strengths, too.

Chirico is your friend.

As far as classical painters go, John William Waterhouse, John William Godward, Sir Frank Dicksee, Edmund Blair Leighton, Arthur Hughes, Jean-Léon Gérôme, Gustave Moreau, and Pierre-Auguste Cot are my favorites. I love Gustave Doré as well.

For modern artists I'm a pretty big fan of Gerald Brom and Frank Frazetta. If you want to see who the great painters and illustrators are of today you MUST look to the modern comic and video game industries, there are some unbelievable digital painters and illustrators working in those industries. Look at sites like cgsociety or conceptartworld for instance and see how amazing so much of the work is.

>>5973947
fuck off to /ic/

>>5973947
>If you want to see who the great painters and illustrators are of today you MUST look to the modern comic and video game industries...

Knock it off, you're gonna get some merc_wip.jpeg in here with that talk.

>>5973052
i saw the ruebens last week. there boring shite m8

>>5973274
History of Art by Gombrich.

>>5974018
You say it as if these ´Ruebens´ are your new girlfriend´s parents.

>>5973991
I don't care, it's the truth. The most talented artists are working in those fields at the moment. The subject of the thread is Art Appreciation so it ought to be mentioned.

>>5974030

>>5974025
Post 'em then.

I wouldn't argue that there are a very few amazing industry artists, but "the most talented" and "you MUST look to comics and vidya" is pretty fucking ridiculous and shortsighted.

>>5973435
This kind of looks like one of those images used where an OP green texts something condescending.

>>5974050
>is pretty fucking ridiculous and shortsighted
Not when I have been looking around in the arts for a long while now. Just take a glimpse at either of those two sites I mentioned, the level of detail in most people's works is astonishing, concept artists especially. Where else do you see that kind of skill nowadays? I would love to know.

Also, I forgot to list the film industry with them, which is right up there too. Those three entertainment industries right now are where all today's top artists are.

>>5973435
>holyshitlookatthisfuckingplebkekekek.jpg

>>5974081

>>5973085
Damn this shit is dope
Have there been any films made that stylistically capture the same type of imagery as in painting like this and pic related?

I'm not good with words so I dunno how to describe it.

If you're at all interested in art history, honestly, there is no better book than 'the Story of Art'. The author disregards the contribution of just about every female artist, but it's nonetheless incredibly comprehensive otherwise. If you're at all interested in art in general, I would say it's a must-read.

>>5974081
>Where else do you see that kind of skill nowadays?
>>5973991
Already posted it, Odd Nerdrum.

Haven't been looking around at the arts long enough it seems.

Also the problem with a lot of industry art like what you just presented, is that it's more like an excellent sketch than a full painting. Not that it's bad to look at, but it falls rather short of your lofty claims.

>>5974104
Uh, here's some "ye olde" industry art from Leyendecker since I may as well contribute. Specifically the magazine industry.

May as well harken back to a better time for commercial art, if we're gonna talk about that.

>>5974104
That picture is nice, but tons of stuff on the sites I listed are way more detailed and skillful. I've seen a lot of modern realist paintings and they neither live up to classical realist paintings or CG and digital art.

>>5974121
>more detailed
Sure
>more skillful
Eh.... dunno on that one.

Talking about the "detail and skill" lacking in "modern realist paintings" is kinda funny, since strictly speaking that's not what "Realism" is about at all and Nerdrum's writings about kitsch actually addresses exactly that skill you seem to admire.

To be frank, since your counter examples are a concept sketch and a photobash I'm judging your taste accordingly. They're fine and all to appreciate, but you really need to look around more if you think that's the creme de la creme.

>>5974121
>muh details
>muh skills

are you by any chance Dragonforce fan?

>>5974139
Speaking of Realism, here's Courbet actin' like a balla'.

>>5974139
The examples I posted are actually not even close to being my favorites, I just don't have the time right now to dig up better examples unfortunately. But I don't think much about modern traditional painters because I feel like they're lost. Their intentions are admirable but so many more artforms have arrived and made painting overall obsolete. Not to say that the great painters of the past aren't still great, but... to go backwards in terms of progress is kind of the opposite of art appreciation, isn't it?

>>5974081
The problem with video game artistry is that outside of the game you're mostly doing quick concept art, and inside the game you're limited by computation resources and the translation to 3d(which is not really a limit, but a change of form) so you're not being able to give all you got. Which is really what we're looking for here, because who gives a shit about the artists skill if it doesn't show in his output? Comics are usually limited by the sheer amount of pictures you need to make, but it's less of a limit there.

>>5973138
do you know what a nymph is you stupid shit

>>5973947
I dont think you really understand what a modern artist is

>>5974173
Mostly agreed, I also think it's kinda weird to try and rewind time like that.

You've got groups like the ARC, just as a random example, who want everyone to paint beautiful things like their hero Bouguereau but that doesn't really fly the same way anymore. I don't think the modern person can relate to the old "Pretty Naked Lady on a Half-Shell" anymore, even in Bouguereau's day he had Dore poking fun at it.

Jeff Watts, who's got his Watts atelier, is in the same boat. Absolutely beautiful and stunning portraits, but that's about it. It's not that it isn't "deep enough" or anything, but that it just seems reflective of some wholly removed fantasy world that can't relate to modernity.

I wouldn't say that painting has become obsolete due to new artforms and technologies, but the aims of many painters today definitely feels out of touch and archaic.

>>5972103
lmao

>>5974188
>and inside the game you're limited by computation resources and the translation to 3d(which is not really a limit, but a change of form) so you're not being able to give all you got
This is a grave misunderstanding of games I constantly see. Artists have had technological and economic limitations all the time, game hardware is the same as this. Not to mention how the game turns out is 100% due to the vision of the artist(s) behind it.

>I don't like Odilon Redon

fedorafatfuck.jpg

>>5974206
>I wouldn't say that painting has become obsolete due to new artforms and technologies, but the aims of many painters today definitely feels out of touch and archaic.
Actually, the only fundamental advantage painting has over other artforms of the image(such as movie, vidya, and comic) is the same things that it's lacking. Movies and games need to be played, comics need a comic book, but the painting constantly displays everything, and that's why you put paintings on walls. They have sort of the same function as the statue, a physical object in the room, although the painting is more illusory than the statue. Of course video games and movies and comics are a physical object too, but the use of the screen(or comic) is as a window into the other world, the room is discarded. I do not know what you can do with this advantage, but there it is.
>>5974220
Of course they always had them, but video games are even more restrictive (in the visual arts department). Though I fucked up, because video games aren't only restrictive, they also allow you to do a great deal because you can construct entire worlds inside one, where painting only allow you glimpses of one at most(and let's not even speak of animation!).

>>5972092
I just saw this at the Getty in Los Angeles. It's even more underwhelming in person.

Poetry and art are decadent and have flourished most in periods of decadence and decline. First is the period of health when the people don't need art because they live happily. Then the first period of decline when chaos sets into society, the old values begin to lose their meaning, tyrants arise to artificially control the chaos and stupefy the masses with art. The is the golden age of art however, because it retains much of the healthiness that came from the prior period when the society was healthy. Then as the society becomes even more decadent art becomes a ritual for its own sake, as the people are completely confused having no idea of their purpose in life, and so art becomes ironic, almost intentionally ugly (our postmodern period isn't unique in history).

When the natural bonds between a people break, education and culture arise to create artificial ones.

>>5974276
The periods of the Greek Tragedians, of Virgil and the Augustan Age, of the Italian Renaissance, of Elizabethan England, of French Neoclassicism, were all periods of decline with the abandonment of old religion and of national identity, and the rise of tyrants.
There's a fair number of verses of the Old Testament that would lead you to believe that the periods that the prophets complained about being godless and fit for punishment by God, were also periods of "culture".

matisse
klee
turner
rembrandt
titian

I like colour, line and psychological realism

>>5974303
looks like a crude cave painting
though that's not fair to all cave painting, because I've seen some quite charming cave paintings, and cave painters were trying their best whereas Matisse and others intentionally uglified their art.

>>5969870

>>5970031
I'm so sorry. You could have been so much more in life but something bad happened to you along the way. I wish I could help, anon.

>>5974276
Someone who has said something similar to this is Thomas Love Peacock
http://www.thomaslovepeacock.net/FourAges.html

This essay of his caused a lot of butthurt in Shelley, such that he wrote. counter-essay where he came up with the ridiculous notion: "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." This is only true in the Platonic sense that artist whip up useful lies for the masses in order to put them into the hands of their tyrannical overlords. The notion that artists are sages and have deep insights is ridiculous. Spend 45 minutes in prayer/meditation and you will receive greater insight than in countless hours spent studying art.

The thing that Peacock gets wrong is when he refers to the iron age of art as being composed of brutes. No, this is is the age when the society is most cohesive and natural. This view of his is not hard to understand given he belonged to and decadent artistic age himself.

>>5974321
you can say many things about matisse but to suggest that he intentionally tried to "uglify" his art is ridiculous. he is, as is his art, hedonist through and through

The real Mozart had blue eyes. This is now an Aryan thread.

>>5974376
hedonists experience neither beauty nor pleasure

>Platonists arrive in the thread

>>5973227

Dictionary of Art and Artists, published in the 1960's... This contains a lot of interesting anecdotes, organized as an alphabetic list of individual biographies. Many forgotten names are listed.

The galleries are extensive and in-depth. See also Robert Hughes on Goya

Maybe a little off-topic

>>5974276
No. They CAUSE miniature periods of decadence and decline, because most people cannot handle the demands of art.

Actually, I painted this icon. *blush*

I usually glaze them in the Spring and give them as gifts in the Winter.

based Brennus

>>5969870
gogghhhh

>>5974276

Interesting. I'm reading Piers Plowman right now, and it may agree with that assessment.

Cranmer

>>5974451

>>5972075
What's wrong with Caravaggio?

>inb4muhunrealisticlighting

>>5974459

>>5974464

It's a matte painting

By a famous Welsh modernist poet

Not a bad wallpaper

>>5973197
underrated

No mention of Rousseau?

>>5974459
That's in my local gallery - it's beautiful to see

>>5974322
My favorite <3

>>5973086
OMG! It's a chair with a red cushion in a dark room!

AMAZING

>>5973158

>>5972335
The insistence that classical art (or similar others) has no potential to make the viewer feel anything is a modern fallacy. The main virtue of classical art is that it shows humans in a higher state of being. Just because classical art (in its true sense) doesn't emphasize affection and eye-catching effects doesn't mean it's incapable of showing emotions. There's quite a lot of subtle emotions that can only be reached through erudition and even restraint. Or else why read Shakespeare or any courtly poetry for that matter? To claim the aforementioned styles/movements can't evoke any emotion makes any praise to Raphael by Romantics all invalid (even though they did see it through their own scope). Besides, all too often art that aims for the instantaneous affection of the viewer doesn't last that long, while some grow more pleasant with familiarity, and as often the emotions come from understanding and reading the story, as in classical Tragedy.

>>5974463
Disfigured composition in which the figures nor the composition don't read as a whole. Too particular in all things. He takes a position of being an artist liked by edgelords seeing that a great deal of people like him because he was an edgelord who lived an unruly lifestyle himself.

I like Picasso, Dali, and Warhol. Where should I go from there?

>>5975528
Try Klee and other surrealists, also Lichtenstein but I don't know shit about Pop Art.

There is a Sade exhibition in Paris, it's must-see.

>>5974206
It's saddening, really. You see the masters they admire and as such you see their goals, but they lack so much in so many departments. I don't think it's that they can't relate to modernity either. They can't relate to anything other than technique right now. And I don't mean they have to be concept artists which seem to be a false dichotomy right now: realist traditional painters vs concept artists. They need to study some actual history and philosophy. They're looking at old art in a modernist view in which technique is the most important. Greatness in art starts with philosophy, then subject matters to portray these themes, and then a style which fits in with these others. Right now their philosophy is quite shallow. They might talk some about Plato but in the end, they're copying plaster casts, portraits, or rendered nudes under studio lighting condition in some easy mode Bargue process. 19th century revival is bound to fail anyway.

I saw a video of Odd Nerdrum where he claims to have some sort of Kantian vision, and I don't really know much about Kant enough to gainsay it, but it seems strange for someone to idolize Rembrandt and claim to paint like Rembrandt yet say his paintings are the result of some philosophy that has no relation to Rembrandt at all. It's all mismatched.

Pic is something no modern "realist" can do in terms of scale, mood, depth of characterization, story etc. Maybe they can be more photographic, but very few have made anything look photographic and Art at the same.

Love me some Titian

>>5972931
>classical vs modern

spot the pleb

byootiful

>>5975726
pls explain your viewpoint

>>5976011
not that guy but beauty doesn't belong to a specific time or style

i've heard a few times the argument that art is cyclical, that there is no such thing as 'progress', that it's tied to the health of its surrounding culture/civilization etc. and to an extent, the idea seems plausible. even so, i find it hard to accept after what we've seen in the last century - i mean, has art ever experienced anything like modernism before? the extreme freeing of line, of colour, of material - surely this is a landmark event in art history? or am i wrong?

love to hear some other opinions

>>5976011
it's a false dichotomy. only plebs view art history this way cos they haven't learned anything about it

>>5973435
staring_girls.jpg

>>5976011
Not that guy, but not everything was classical before modernism, although our modern view of things group everything else together as same, and the art of the last century as distinct. Since the art of the last century is so distinct from those which come before, it's easy to be misguided, both by modernists and revivalists of sort, that there exists this distinction above all in the criticism of art. There are many more types of art, even within what we might call classical, and because certain types of art which were specifically anti-classical are viewed now by some to be classical because of the reason which I have before mentioned. There is classical in the sense of idealistic mimesis. There is art which is mostly about artifice or style. There are art which are about the present, whether through emotional immediacy or through realism or what some might call genre painting, and many more, these all being painted to some degree based on nature. The tension between classical vs modern is a false one. Representational vs modern abstraction might be more true, although lumping together all representational art is almost as great a mistake, since the philosophy behind them are quite varied.

>>5976034
If you're going to call art history a false dichotomy then calling anyone a pleb because they don't see it your way is also a false dichotomy.

>>5969990
>>5972077
>>5974353

Never really understood this attitude. I guess being cocky is useless on an anonymous board, so self deprecation would be the norm, but this is just plain ignorance.

You might be the few people that only shitpost and flood the board with atheism threads, but there are at least several hundred regular visitors who genuinely read, and most request/actual book discussion threads get a few people who have something valuable to say about it.

>>5976069
i'm saying classic vs modern is not art history and is a false dichotomy

>>5976050
>The tension between classical vs modern is a false one
Ps: not to say that there couldn't exist a tension between the classical aims and modern aims. There are just much more parties in tensions and the implication that art before modernism must necessarily be classical is a wrong usage of the term classical.

>>5972117
Why is her left arm so huge?

>>5976106
it's called epic realism

>>5969870
Bernini gives me a boner.

Would anyone here care to share any of their own paintings/drawings?

>>5976025
Perhaps we have not even reached the end of one cycle yet.

>>5976108
This is absolutely fantastic

>>5976133
magnificent.

>>5974206
>I wouldn't say that painting has become obsolete due to new artforms and technologies
Why not? It's happened for everything else. Painting isn't popular anymore—not traditional painting, at least.

>>5973698
>Boston
Let's go see the Goya exhibit before it closes, brotato.


But where are all the photo>>5976108
graphs, guys?

>>5976108
>>5976113
>>5976125

>>5976679
Meant to ask, "Where are all the dicks, Twombly?

>>5976108
>Two year old's bib
>>5976125
>Four year old with crayons
>>5976113
>Nine year old with mommy's makeup (PENIS PENIS PENIS)

>>5976131
>Sunken Viking ships flying to Valhalla

>>5973158

>>5974429
i dig it

>>5976736
He's getting better
Than the one in my folder on him anyway.

>>5970031

/lit/ was good for the first couple weeks, maaaaybe the first month. Then Ayn Rand became a meme. Then discussion of Ayn Rand was banned. Then users started to spam Ayn Rand. Then the board got more popular. Then all the high schoolers started using /lit/ as I-didn't-read-this-explain-it-to-me.com. There started to be threads about fanfiction. Shitty writers started posting shitty writing threads. The incessant "six word story" threads. The rise of the tripcode users. The navel-gazing philosophy threads.

It's been a long, slow, painful decay. We're nowhere near as good as we used to be. And it's too late to go back.

>>5973171

I always wondered how artists convinced galleries and museums to allow pieces that involve altering the actual space the piece is in. For example, how would this guy go about pitching his piece? Unless he's doing it in his own studio, I guess, but he'd still have to get approval from the landlord or realtor or what have you.

>>5976747
how about you finally kill yourself worthless dyke

>>5976824
Be nice

>>5973192

I love Egon Schiele so fucking much. I can't even explain why, he just touches some deep reptilian part of my brain in a way no other artist ever has.

>>5976824
Did you disagree with the sentiment or are you just saying hello?

>>5976158

You first.

>>5976842

go back to tumblr, cunt

>>5976926
Go back to reddit ya tosser

>>5976927
Go back to 9fag you gooch.

>>5976942
Go back to facebook you you... impertinent sap!

Pls post more expressionism

>>5976817
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBfYfy-jOHA

Pretty sure that's the episode you'd be looking for.

It's not the best series, but does fairly well and bringing up some points in a very short video.

TL;DW:
>You can't pirate or replicate an instillation piece, anybody interested has to pay admission

>>5976725
come on butterfly, surely you, as someone who can appreciate the richness and variety of literature, would not dismiss twombly so quickly and so callously

>>5975630
I'm a fan of Lichtenstein. I don't like the other surrealists as much as Dali. I guess a bit reason why I like Dali and Warhol is their films

>>5976106
Probably an exaggeration of the bulging of the extensor compartment of the forearm in extention as she pulls the string she's holding.

>>5973122
>>5973122
>>5973126
>>5973126
Sauce? please

>>5973086
>rothko
he's a talentless hack

>>5973191
>imply art didn't ordain places of worship and put in public parks where all the plebs go

>>5969911

IlyaRepin
Ivan Aivazovsky
Viktor Vasnetsov
Gustav Klimt
Egon Schiele
Gustave Dore
Gustave Moreau
John WilliamWaterhouse
Lawrence Alma-Tadema
Alphonse Mucha
Odilon Redon
Felicien Rops
Carlos Schwabe
Arnold Böcklin
Gustav-Adolf Mossa
JeanDelville
Alfred Kubin

>>5980707

My fav artists.

Odilon Redon > all