/lit/ - Literature

>>7044591
Drive to Guggenheim and marvel

Just pick up any art history textbook and skip to the modern/contemporary/post-contemporary/post-modern section--filled with filthy charlatans scamming idiots out of money with circumlocutions, projections, and obvious shilling.

It's a more corrupt industry than loan sharking.

>>7044591
If you need convincing about why you should like a particular work of art, chances are it won't be successful.

Quad vee

>>7044598
>>7044600
>>7044605
Didn't take long for /pol/ to get here, I see.

>>7044609
>posts the truth
>cries /pol/

typical /lit/ists.

I'll just leave one of my notes here with no explanation whatsoever. Have a nice day!

Let's see what my homeboi Hitler had to say about it.

>>7044621
This screencap is literally taken directly from /pol/ though. >>7044600

>>>/pol/

>>7044635
Fuck off jew.

>>7044632
>being this butthurt about not getting into art school

>>7044609
>m-muh modern art
Degenerate

>>7044591
art is the communication of emotions through tragedy and drama

this is why the women are interested in art [in drama and tragedy, emotions since they believe that life goes through them; the art enlivens the women]

but this is also why the women cannot be artists. they cannot communicate and desire too much to ''feel alive''

men are not interested in art, but are good artist. Men have something to say since they experience the most of the drama and tragedy in life. Plus, men are less hedonist than the women. They want to be relevant, but it is more outwardly. Women want to feel alive for themselves. men's quest of relevance passes through other individuals in the world

>>7044641
Ever thought for one second, to put aside your brianwashing and think of the possibility that perhaps Hitler was an artist that showed a lot of genuine promise, and the charlatans that were getting into art school and graduating were frauds that created garbage?

Nawh forget it, urinals and shit in a can LOL! RANDUM REDDIT MEMEYS! WHITES SUCK LOLZ!

>>7044652
Somehow I doubt your artistic comprehension.
Does your mom know you're using the computer ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz5Oyze8ziI

/pol/ owns /lit/.

>>7044591
Modern art was a reaction to Old art

The modern artists were born after the old artists and they thought hey those old dudes are cramping my styles. Thats realLame. Let's do something different now. And they did

And that my friend, is the entire story of modern art

>>7044641
What sharp insight. Have you considered writing for television?

>>7044657
God damn I love being white
but I hate americans with a passion

>>7044652

This is why the idea of high art sucks a thousand dicks. Literature, music and film I can abide. Painting is fucking shit-tier.

>>7044652
>people on 4chan are genuinely impressed by the art in the first row

>>7044665

>>7044652
>Nawh forget it, urinals and shit in a can LOL! RANDUM REDDIT MEMEYS! WHITES SUCK LOLZ!
See, /pol/, this is the reason no one takes you seriously. Even when trying to be serious, you eventually burst out into strawmen and bringing random shit into the conversation that is totally unrelated, but because it is constantly on your mind you have to bring it up. Like a brony talking about fucking horses. Stop it.

>>7044668
You're not old enough to post on this board.

>>7044668
... you do realize that the single fact that you're shitposting about it proves that the paiting on the right is a more interesting piece of art ? And that that is objective ?

Thank you for contributing to the glory of modern art good goy

>>7044674
Listen dumbass, you're a dumb cunt--end of story.

More and more people are taking the red-pill, and this makes you pissed probably, but you're just gonna have to deal with it.

>>7044675
>only refutation he can marshal

>>7044678
I can't believe we let people like you breathe the same air as we do.

I have a similar question as OP.

I want to understand and appreciate the different ways that art is created.

Are there any books that can help me understand the creative processes that artists use to create Art?

I don't care so much about finished products as the process by which that product was thought up and created.

>>7044678
>mooooom someone is being me to me on the interneeeet

>>7044652
Adolf's stuff, while technically admirable, is really bland and boring. It makes you feel nothing. You look at his paintings and you think: "Oh, that's a nice scene."

The other artists all capture something deeper than the surface level impressions that Hitler get. The grotesque sultriness of the whore in the stockings, the claustrophobia of the closely grouped sculptures, the shame and perversion of the red-lit bedroom scene... It's all so real and human.

If Hitler had been born one hundred years earlier his painting might have been appreciated, as it was he just wasn't good enough for the progressive art world of the 1920's.

>>7044680
Oh, I'm sorry, you thought we were discussing ? I'm just insulting you, you're not worth my time and frankly on this board by accident. Don't come back tomorrow.

Post art or an answer to OPs question or fuck off

>>7044678
And now you insult me even though that was my first post in the thread and you know nothing about me. And then you go back to bursting out into your "us vs them" worldview where you automatically assume everyone who is speaking up against you is deluded and brainwashed.

>>7044682
Draw, paint and draw again. I honestly think that it's the only way you'll be able to truly understand how a piece was made. In books you'll only find technical advices, you won't find anything about the intellectual process.

>>7044690
tbh ur mum's a slut smh af af #TRUUUUUUU.
See, I can make modern art as well

>>7044688
Hitler was better than Gauguin. Look at this garbage, 4th grade tier.

>>7044691

Make me, cunt.

My posts ARE art.

Frame this shit and hang it on your wall.

>>7044695
Why are you so angry ?

>OPs face when he sees his thread

>>7044700
I'm not, I'm simply showing you that "modern" art is no better than shitposting

>>7044698
Mods please

>>7044702
Wow I feel so enlightned, especially after I've visited like 8 modern art useum in whole europe lol

pls bash your keys more until your fingers bleed maybe you will make one my neurons accidentally blink ROFL

>he gets his cultural opinions from an imageboard

>has no idea about the history of art or the reasoning behind most modern art movements
>still thinks his opinion is valid

>>7044704
>only the finest shitstains on canvas for m'sir

>>7044697
>objectively

>>7044707
Try harder.
>muh modern art is strokes on canvases

You don't know what modern art is, so why are you trying to attack it ?
Why do you even resent it in the first place ? Have you been enrolled against it by this very website because it tricked you into thinking there was a modern / classic dichotomy, or even that "modern" were the guys you hate ? I'm sorry to tell you you have been scammed and that you are trying to fight an absraction that doesn't exist and is in fact, merely a spook.

Pic related modern art.
read a book stupid nigger, and come back when you are legally allowed to drink.

>>7044706
I shouldn't need a university degree to appreciate a work of art.

>>7044711
This is an incorrect premise, besides
You don't appreciate anything. I bet you play video games. What are your favorite artists ?

>>7044712
Only, you know, the structure you posted is ugly as fuck.
Architecture is called "frozen music" and that's a fucking yoko ono track

>>7044712
>You don't know what modern art is, so why are you trying to attack it ?

>>7044721
your subjective opinion is worthless
you have adressed none of my points
you are starting to bore me

>>7044723
Do you know what this piece is or do i have to go through the excruciatingly tiring pain of explaining it to you in simple words ?

>>7044711
Too bad because you're not getting one

>>7044591
History of art.

To be thought good, modern art needs its context. It needs all the intellectual development that led art to it. Modern art doesn't exist without History of art. All pieces need a explanation: a piece of language that explains the intelectual "place" of the piece; be a book or be a museum guide.

Modern art without all the arguments surrounding it is just what philistines see when they see art, a bunch of lines and stains that even a child could've made.

>>7044727
>Not everyone can be a Michelangelo, but anyone can be a Duchamp, Pollock, or Rothko—hence, anyone can get into art school (so they can pay thousands of dollars to the school) to be called an “artist”—all they have to do behave like an imbecile and have an extreme dissociation with reality (aka more money than sense). (Post)modern art is a heinous sham that everyone is in on (except those stupid and naïve enough to believe in its
doctrines)—it’s eerily like a religion/cult in that respect.

>>7044711
Tough luck. Art is an ivory tower.

>>7044725
OK, just tell me this.
Do you consider pic related to be a piece of art?

>>7044711
And you dont, you just shouldnt expect your opinion to matter to anyone in a discussion about art if you admit to not knowing shit about it and having "i dont like it" as your only argument.

>>7044730
You are ignoring everything I say and trying to fight an invisible opponent I am not.

Also your picture is a meme and nobody uses these arguments.
Try insulting my sexuality next; I sometimes gaze at man butts at the gym

>>7044732
>resorting to platonic dialogue when unable to answer to queries
I see what you're doing, but since I am the most intellectually honest of us two, I'll explain that I do not categorize things as work of art of contingents work unless I am certain I have understood the work correctly and figured out a good portion of the intent.

For example I thought the Spanish Bookshelf was dogshit until I understood the catch behind it and the considered it art.

>>7044711
>I shouldn't need a university degree to appreciate a work of art.
lol

sure, you can also read heidegger for the sake of reading it

>>7044736
>it’s eerily like a religion/cult in that respect.
Yep, you sound like a brainwashed drone to me.

>ignorant people hate and dismiss everything they can't understand at first glance

Just another day on 4chan.

Protip: If a painting has ever made you feel angry or disgusted, then guess what, that painting has achieved its goal of making you FEEL something.

>>7044738
Please have the guts to elaborate on this weak attack

>>7044738
Anon, not that guy, but I just want to let you know that I don't take you seriously.

>>7044739
tbh that means 4chan is a piece of art.
BRAVO MOOT

>>7044742
rofl if you actually feel emotions when browsing this website it's time to install antiprocrastinator and go outside

>>7044742
Moot?

>>7044743
Doesn't this pic evoke a certain feeling in you?

>>7044747
certainly not on the same level as a work of art
ultimately everything evokes feelings in me

>>7044747
is that you?

>>7044706

>Art major finally found use for his major
>Being a condescending dick to people on the internet

Huew.

>>7044751
So you admit that browsing 4chan evokes emotions in you?
ROF if you actually feel emotions when browsing this website it's time to install antiprocrastinator and go outside

>>7044754
He is not wrong though.

>>7044755
>responding to the wrong guy
>being this butthurt
>misunderstanding interlocutor's point

You forgot to attach a meme picture

>>7044747

>>7044754
I am neither an artist nor do I have a degree in art.

I'm just curious enough to read up on a subject before deciding to have an opinion on it.

>>7044758
Thanks for reminding me fam

>>7044761
top banter

Eddie: Look, this is a genuine first edition of "Parade"! It's still in its sealed cellophane wrapper!
Richie: It doesn't matter how you art it up Eddie, it's still a jazz mag.
Eddie: That's what they said to Michaelangelo about the Sistine Chapel.
Richie: No it's not! The Sistine Chapel is art. If they said anything they would have said "Blimey! Nice painting Mr. Angelo. Now that's what I call art, and it's not porny at all."

>>7044766
The sistine chapel is porny as fuck.

im new to /lit/ and actually thought people of this board would appreciate art. instead it's just the typical reddit / /b/-tier circlejerking about how "le modern art is stupid" with an added pinch of "the jews did it"

>>7044774
yup

>>7044774
Don't let the door hit your ass.

>>7044774
have you read through the thread?

Its actually only one poltard dissing on modern art and whole bunch of guys telling him to fuck off

>>7044774
AND as usual noone knows the diffence between modern art and contemporary art. read a fucking book, isn't that what this board is about?

tbh this blows modern art the fuck out

>>7044782
Nawh man, shit in a can makes me experience wayyyy more.

>>7044769
Forgot the rest of the quote.
Eddie: It bloody well is dirty you know! There's those three birds on the top of the third pillar from the left with the bit of blue ribbon. Gaww! Some of the things they're doing would make your nose bleed! There's a picture of it in the history of art book, where is it?
Richie: Oh, well, let's not bother with all that now, Eddie, let's just have dinner.
Eddie: Here it is, in your study area. That's odd -- it's fallen open at the exact page. How extraordinary, it's done it again!

>>7044782
>>7044789
How does this statue make you feel ? You don't even believe in god.

>>7044782
its a great sculpture, but why are you faggots so obsessed with technical skill?

>>7044782
>this piece of art is better than that piece of art

How quaint.

>>7044791
>you don't believe in god
I do, but you don't have to be religious to admire the beauty of it

>>7044652
Who's the second and the last

>>7044719
They are Blake, Klimt, pre-raphs and lowry. However, I spend most of my time looking at misc portraits or landscapes with buildings that have historical content, mostly dutch oil paintings of towns or pencil sketches of churches.

>>7044737
>>7044731
Art schools have been a round for a negligible fraction of art's history, I don't see why they are suddenly required to unlock it's hidden meaning. As far as >>7044733 is concerned he should be aware that "I like it" (or I think this is important) has been the principle argument for the commission, preservation and propagation of art down the centuries, carried out by the consensus of the sense equipped general population as much as book baring elites.

>>7044798
The beauty of God or the statue ?

>>7044798
>i do
*tips †*

I'll offer a side argument about judging traditional (up to the end of the 19th century that is) and modern/postmodern art: the problem we have today is that art
theory in conjuction with conceptual art going back to the 1960s has essentially decimated any functioning technique of judging art.

If one goes back to the time when the impressionists were coming up, there was a 'standard' school of art (the Paris Salon) that one could adhere to, or choose to stray from (the salon des refusees etc.). so you had 'mainstream art' and fringe art that encapsulated everything else, hence the existence of standards of the ability to discuss the quality of art based on its adherence or non-adherence to certain standards.

The reason why I think postmodern art theory, conceptual art and poststructuralist philosophy are a step back artistically speaking is because instead of adding more tools to one's ability to discuss art, they seem to have removed some tools by dismantling the idea of a 'mainstream' school of art. The way the art world is now in many ways doesn't allow for proper discussion because there is nothing to refer to. I cannot point to a piece by Koons and say 'it's good because it's like X' or 'it's bad because it doesn't fit Y and Z rules'. It's not truly possible to form a genuine hierarchy or canon right now because art theory has, in many ways, dismantled itself and what we are left with is, largely:

- marketing
- shock value
- concept over execution (here is the influence of semiotics on visual art)
- a requirement to be 'trendy' in order to be successful

This isn't to say that there isn't good art being made, that wpuld be stupid. The problem is that there is essentially no way of championing said art other than entering either a screaming match with whoever does not agree or an obscurantist series of observations used to convince the other party by confusing them.

Someone pointed out that there is too much shilling and money laudering going on today. I'd like to remind people who think this that the art world has always functioned this way,but I would argue it functioned better as a 'free market' rather than one filled with middle men in the form of art critics, curators and so on. I think it is no coincidence that, if we look back to 17th duth society and art, the painters that we recognize as great to this day from said period (Rembrandt, de Hooch, Franz Hals, Vermeer to a lesser extent) where also some of the most sought after and well paid of their day. I'd explain that by saying that the market filtered out the less talented artists or rather formed a natural hierarchy because
1. rules by which to judge art were in place (realism, composition, technique, finish, speed of commission etc.)
2. the relative absence of art criticism in Dutch society at the time (with 2-3 exceptions who were also painters themselves) that could influence the market with talk and marketing techniques.

>>7044815
I know right? My stupid funDIE mom is exactly like that, she forces me to go to church every sunday when all I want to do is jerk off to anime
>>7044816
The beauty of the statue.
Even if you think that god doesn't exist you can admire the pain of a woman losing her son, as well as the skill involved

>>7044782
Looks like shit imho tbqh fam
Muh more creases muh more inner turmoil
Off yourself

>>7044828
tbh I disagree with you smh but I think you have a right to muh opinion fam af af smh tbh tbh

>>7044782

In a word:

boring.

>>7044834
>loooool this is boring where's the menstrual blood

>>7044821
Great post in an otherwise shit thread. Thanks for contributing.

>>7044838
low quality bait

>>7044822
fuck off badphil

>>7044854
>I much prefer empty canvases to this
>>7044856
What the fuck's a badphil?

Not all of this is specifically on modern art, but you need to understand art in general if you want to understand modern art. Here's a selected reading list:


W.Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age if its Mechanical Reproduction

>Careri. Flights of Love

>Danto, The Abuse of Beauty

>Duchamp, The Creative Act

>Florensky, Inverted Perspective

>Hegel, Lectures on Aesthetics

>Focillon, The Life of Forms

>Henderson, Duchamp in Context

>Kandinsky, The Spiritual in Art

>Kant, Critique of Judgement

>Luhmann, Art as a Social System

>Newman, The Sublime is Now

>Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form

>Plato, Republic X, Phaedrus, Symposium

>Ramachandran, The Science of Art

And if you only get one book to read, I'd suggest this one:

>Shiner, The Invention of Art

Itt
Polacks getting btfo once again
Hitlwr gread best artisd :XDDD magda race breker.jpg

>>7044821

One final note:

I find that the true irony of postmodern art today is that the idea was in many ways dead on arrival. Arguably Duchamp is the first postmodern artist before postmodernism was even around as his Fountain is:
- a comment on the artistic establishment and institutions
- a comment on itself as a piece of art
- a questioned posed towards the relevancy of naming something 'art'
- an comment on the relevancy of the artist himself in the interpretation of a piece of art

And so on. Notice how this was done in the early 20th century technically by a 'modern' artist (part of the Dada/Surrealist movement) and appreciated at the time, but European society and artistic culture arguably moved on to other things. All the arguments made above could equally apply to other Surrealist pieces as well, like Man Ray's 'Violon d'Ingres' for example.

The amusing thing is that what we now call 'postmodernism' is largely a creation of an American 60s youth movement that wanted art to be more political, to ask more questions of itself and its surroundings and so on, essentially people who seem to have disregarded art thar came before and proclaimed that they have reinvented the wheel. Fortunately they also managed to put together an entire system of thought as a kind of fortress around their ideas by having artist-critics among their ranks (think of Martha Rosler and some feminist artists as well) and to this day have managed to perpetuate it as if it's some kind of novel thing that they're doing.

Finally, and this is a personal feing that I cannot truly argue for, I feel like it's quite hard for America, or the angloshpere in general perhaps, to come up with something truly interesting until they accept that irony, cynicism and fighting for illusory ideals through art (painting with menstruation blood to make a point about being a female artist etc.) will not lead to anything other than navel-gazing and circle-jerky applause from people within the system.

>>7044865
Honestly, Hitler was a mediocre artist, but that doesn't mean modern art isn't shit

>>7044866
This.

I have three personal problems with works of modern art which I'd love for anyone in this thread to rectify:

1.) The technical skill involved in their production is obscure or non-existant
2.) Their motivation is too selfish
3.) They value timeless abstraction over the living present

Picture is of a modern piece of stained glass for a cathedral. It's a working piece of art, it has fine details, beautiful colour and a humane view of the world. The painting in OP feels barren in comparison, like it was painted for a computer brain.

Hopefully this thread will be rescued by some interesting discussion.

>>7044861
>finally some fucking book recommendations in here

God bless you, anon.

>>7044869
I honestly appreciate your feedback tbh fam
Right back at you
Doesn't mean you're not unintelligent

>>7044878
What the fuck

>>7044821
Here I wanted to say '17th century Dutch society' of course

>>7044878
Eh, I think this one is better

>>7044812
>Blake favorite painter
lol ok bye didn't realize you were baiting cause im dum

Toplel
The examples for "real art" in these threads are always the kitschiest shit

>>7044866
Where and how should one look for art outside the system and how do you think it'll eventually crumble?

>>7044895
Taken with the literature they're very powerful.

>>7044895
You sense for spirituality might be stunted.

>>7044878

First I would ask if you're referring to modern art or contemporary art, but I'll try to answer your questions anyway:

1. As I wrote in the post above somewhere, this is a problem you'll have to deal with, as much contemporary art is heavily influenced by conceptual art where language, ideas and post facto explanations are placed above technical skill. You may ask why this is, and the answer is complicated, but I'll try to offer a few points:
1. As much as people may not agree, photography took over the idea of replicating reality from other forms of art. Two ways to look at things here: art lost its initial purpose and thus lost its essence somehow (mostly not true) OR art was freed to become something else, and what it chose to become is a depiction of mental processes, states of mind and so on. And of course "Anger" is much more difficult to define than 'Landscape in Surrey", so technique became less important
2. Romantic ideas regarding the artist: these ideas don't stem just from Romanticism per se (although it did solidify these ideas with the general public) but rather going back to the Renaissance and Vasari writing about Michelangelo as a creature sent down by God himself to create Art, a true genius etc. Artists are likely to be egostitical anyway, and having an artistic theory telling them that this is in fact the case does not help. Add to that postmodern art theory about the death of the author, subjectivity of meaning etc. and the very idea that technique matters will break down completely.

I'll post more (possible) answers in the following post

>>7044910
>>7044912
On the precise contrary and that is why I hate him.

>>7044900

Well, in a different sense the good thing about postmodernism is that whatever you qualify as art is art, so I couldn't say 'go to this website/read this magazine, this is where the GOOD art is', there is no such thing. I can only say what I like myself but, again, since there's no way for me to justify my enjoyment of said thing without resorting to subjectivity, it would be irrelevant.

I get some kind of aesthetic pleasure out all kinds of things, from album cover art to fonts on a website to pictures in a cookbook to video game concept art etc. Are they all 'deep'? no, of course not, but there's only so many masterpieces out there. For 'proper' (high) art I tend to go back to more classical artists. I do some photography myself, so one of my favourites is Peter de Hooch for his sense of composition. Some 20th century artists like Wilhelm Hammershoi and Whistler I also enjoy.

>>7044878
So:

2. They're too selfish - If you feel this way, there's no way to address the problem. There are art collectives out there though, or groups that don't necessarily do it for the money, fame whatever. But again, it's basically impossible to know who is honest and who is just bullshitting because we don't have a way to judge what they say.

3. Abstraction over the 'living present' - not sure how this is a problem. do you want art to be all social realism? that can get tiring. Also all art is to some extent abstraction, you just have to decide for yourself how abstract is too abstract. For example, if you look at a Ruisdael landscape (you may notice 17th century Dutch art is my jam), it is not a 'real' place. He'd go to various areas and pick the best elements, so a painting might be an area outside Haarlem with a castle from a different area added in to balance the composition. Similarly and more to your point, Koninck's landscapes make no sense close up, often the area around the horizon is just abstract colored lines with no detail. Art just evolved towards more and more abstraction, you can just stop where you wish to stop.

>>7044591
nah

>>7044913
Depicting mental processes and replicating reality were combined in old art. Photography just shows raw information when I really need most of that filtered through the eyes of an artist and moulded to a form. Let their be rules for rules sake, selective measures to encourage technical skill and some belief or faith to challenge relentless subjectivity so that artists wont try and supplement their authority by trying to be psychologists, physicists or politicians.

That's my initial rant on your appreciated response.

>Add to that postmodern art theory about the death of the author, subjectivity of meaning etc. and the very idea that technique matters will break down completely.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

Art discussions here are usually so god damn awful.

I recommend you two series (which are on youtube): Ways of Seeing and Shock of the New. They're a good kickstart.

>>7044991
>Depicting mental processes and replicating reality were combined in old art

Yes and no. Yes in most religious art especially after the 15th century, not really in less important genres like landscape, at least not until the Romantic period. The problem is really judging things based on just mental processes rather than the combination you mention.

>Photography just shows raw information when I really need most of that filtered through the eyes of an artist

There has been much debate in photographic theory about this and there are 2 sides, one is yours, the other is that clicking the shutter button is the artist expressing himself by mind and spirit, but transferring the technique to a machine, so in a sense, photograohy is the purest medium of modern art as it is eschews the very idea of technique. So basically I'm saying I don't agree that it's raw information, watching cctv footage for a long period of time might be that maybe.

>>7044984
Art should never stop, I want to see contemporary landscapes, artist capturing people as they live/feel now and they can do it with as much abstraction and cunning selection as they like as long as they stay anchored to a sense of balance and purpose. Nourishment is what I look for in art and I think other people yearn for the freshness lacking in old Dutch masters and the wholeness absent from contemporary pieces.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudrillard/articles/the-conspiracy-of-art/

https://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/ArtScam/artscam.php

Also Nietzsche contra Wagner.

>>7045018
I can understand why taking a photo is an artistic experience for the artist, but I'm not some voyeur of his imagination. I respect photographers over most modern artist for their skill and technical expertise with lighting, finding subjects, exposing reality, developing and editing images, but their product is harder to digest and doesn't give me the sugar like rush of sharing the feelings of an artistic painting.

>>7045039
Full text fascist/monarchist?

>>7045066

Nah, actually just some semi-blogpost. It read cooler in a screenshot, but here's the full article: http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/29/born-225-years-ago-tocqueville-predicted-the-tyranny-of-the-majority-in-our-modern-world/

>>7045039
>human greatness is the theme of art

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Just read anything by Mary stokstad. She's written pretty much all of the art textbooks that schools use.

>>7045080
Feel free to argue against Tocqueville and Stendhal

>>7045098
Ok, I admit that I'm not really educated in theory of visual arts, so I have a serious question - how is pic related about human greatness?

>>7045022
>other people yearn for the freshness lacking in old Dutch masters

That's the thing though I find the Dutch masters endlessly fascinating.

A writer once said that 'young people should be at the spearhead of history'. I've got an art history degree but for that reason I've moved away from the subject and am focusing on other stuff, because I feel like we've reached the peak of what I personally consider 'good art' 400 years ago and with some delightful exceptions it's been largely downhill from there. So I'd feel like a fraud if I pretended to be a contemporary art critic, since I find most of contemporary art either vacuous (pop art onwards) or vague to the point where any interpretation is acceptable, so what's the point of debating.

>>7045128

Not that guy but you must understand that until the 20th century artistic genres followed a very clear hierarchy as follows:
1. Historical, biblical or (after the 16th century) mythological painting - the most important and admired genre, proof of a great artist
2. Portraiture - as it required great skill to represent the body, the face and expressions
3. Genre painting - meaning scenes from life; this only became impoetant in the 16th century, before that it was seen as irrelevant
4. Landscape, pastorals etc. - basically no proof of talent

So posting a work that is most likely a study by Durer for another work, or an exercize in depicting a hare does not refute the guy you're talking to. Why not look at this depiction of St. Jerome. I have to assume Durer tried to do that lion separately several times before integrating it into this more complex picture.

>>7044821
What are some good books to learn about the history of art and the artistic standards that were held years ago?

>>7044688
What about achieving both aestheticism while capturing something deeper? I believe classical art's purpose was to create beauty in everything, even out of experiences that can be considered sad or gruesome. I believe this was to keep a high morale and discipline within a society, but also to represent a culture of beauty and detail, which reflects the culture's high standards of technicality, beauty, discipline, morale, dignity, and pride.
Modern art is in my opinion used as a tool to expose a culture's degrading morale, which is impressive of course if the artist manages to do so while reaching out to a large audience, but I believe it can have a negative impact on the mentality of a society. Being exposed to ugliness daily in life through all artforms, even architecture, creates a nihilist and post-modernist mentality. This again removes a deeper purpose in life to live where rather materialism is our only motivation. I guess you can blame Capitalism on that, but I believe Capitalism and beauty can co-exist in a society where beauty is highly valued (which increases the demand for art that is beauty).

We all know that Christianity focused on love as a meaning to life and modernism, in my opinion, was a reaction to Christianity. Love and beauty lost therefore its value when modernism replaced religion.

See pic related (40 days in the desert). It provokes a feeling of depression and melancholy, but it also makes beauty out of it through detail, technicality, colouring, etc. It achieves the same goal as modernist/modern art, but makes it into something beautiful rather than something ugly and grotesque.

>>7045207

That's not your opinion, that Roger Scruton's opinion

>>7045237
Holy shit you're right.
It's such a long time ago since I read his opinions that I had completely forgotten him while his opinions stayed in my mind.

Correction then, I agree with him.

>>7044652
>the last panel is still too much for /pol/

Is Van Goh degenerate too you cunts too? Like holy shit.

>>7045128

That's a study, you fuckwit. As >>7045153
already explained it would be integrated into a composition later.

>>7045321

It's especially ironic if you consider that perspective, realism, and all the other things /pol/ masturbates over are completely lacking in art from what according to them is the 'golden era' of humanity

>>7044688
>technically admirable

It really fucking wasn't and theres a reason he didn't get in beyond them being bland. Art Schools were far more competitive back then and there were far better technical drawers at the time that did get in (most of his architectual drawings have complete shit perspective and anyone could get to the level he was it in a year or less.)

Don't give the /pol/ shits the pleasure of thinking he had any worth as an artist.

>>7044737
why would you EVER DO THAT

god that's horrible

fuck heidegger

>>7044744
sup newfag how u doin ???

>>7044792
yngwie malsteem literally writes all the best songs because he is the best guitarist, art is the exact same way, duh

>>7044821
>>7044866
both of these posts are on point

>>7045039
/thread

>>7045462
>your shitty right wing blogpost is /thread

nope

>>7045388
>yngwie malsteem
you have really shit taste

>>7045347
>most of his architectual drawings have complete shit perspective and anyone could get to the level he was it in a year or less.)

In one of his paintings of a building, there's a set of stairs leading up to a door, and the perspective is seriously askew.

>>7044652
the figure drawings in the first row are absolute shit compared to the rest, and the landscapes are tepid dross fit for a motel lobby

>>7044652
how can you possible hate based schiele

tbqh contemporary art moved on from abstract expressionism like 50 years ago rothko died in 1970, pollack died in 1956. thats when these guys DIED, not even when they were most relevant. if you're going to pick cherries, you could at least pick some that have viable seeds, so to speak

how can you shit on "modern art" when you don't even know any living artists. theres lots of excellent oil painting out there in any style you can imagine. if you think hyper-realism is the height of the visual arts, well, congrats, because you're living in a time when theres more of that than any other period in art history. impressionism? most tourist-downtown areas of cities have bullshit artists that pander to your taste, and even better, you can choose between street vendor and property owners. go visit some galleries instead of patting yourself on the back for laughing at tired reddit memes

heres a contemporary masterpiece.

>>7044730
>because it's done right
o i am laffin

Here's a /lit/ related work of art.

>>7045760
Another

Why the fuck is there a thread about VISUAL arts on /lit/

Why the fuck isn't this about the artistic qualities of literature?

>>7045336
>Excuse me ma'am, that's a very nice painting of a hare you have there
>Why thank you very much
>Yes a lovely piece of art I think
>Oh actually it's not art at all
>Excuse me?
>Well no, you see there' s no underlying theme of human greatness to it
>I don't quite follow
>Well, do you see Jesus in the painting?
>Is this one of those turn it upside down to see the face type deals? I love those
>No Jesus to be found. We've searched high and low for him but haven't found him, so for the time being we keep this in the non-art section of the house with all of the others. If we find him he can go into the art section
>It's crystal clear to me now miss. I hope you find your Jesus

>>7044736
I don't think the defense of your definition of art/artistic intent is firmly founded; due to the finality of the DFW reviewed book, Mort D'Author, it's pretty clear that post-structuralism is obviously the most clear explanation of the value of any given utterance, no matter the medium.

If you can keep from being totally ignorant to your own ignorance, check the the audio recording of "Greatly Exaggerated" on SoundCloud, might clear things up a bit.

Chiao.

>>7045777
We have these threads once in a while. All good fun, new faggot. You're free to make another DFW thread, though.

>>7045805

Not who you replied to, but, no we're not. I got banned for posting a dfw thread.

Yet people post threads that having literally nothing to do with literature and don't get banned. Fuck this board, mods are retards atm.

>>7045811
cosign

>>7045200
Bump

>>7045811
>get banned for shitposting
wow, this is new

>>7044688
>Expressing emotions is what's truly important

Christ; an ape can express emotion, only homo sapiens can express something higher.

Poorly designed messes of color and shapes that "invoke emotion" is so primal and undeveloped. The fact that people over the course of thousands of years; managed to go from drawing handprints and mammoths on cave walls--to painting perfect representations of reality, is amazing.

But to retrograde to basic forms and reactionary responses is the exact opposite of evolution and progress.

That is why this art is sp terrible. It puts such awful things on display as something to be valued, as an ideal of everyone. That everything is ugly, lame, offensive and brutal. Because the painters have no better ideal to see within themselves.

/rant

>>7044802
Schiele and Hrdlicka

>>7044591
You should get an overview of the scope of modern art. It's a common misconception that the definition of modern art is "any piece of art made in the last 100 years that I think have no merit" or "any painting I feel is than Hitler's," and that modern art is only abstract, conceptual, and performance art (specifically the ones you don't like).

Get reading bitch nigga, you've got 800 pages to go.
http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-Hard-cover-Edition/dp/0205673678

>>7045336
>>7045153
Ok, that might be a bad example, if you say so.

But what about pic related? (An egyptian painting) Or a landscape? Or any piece of art, really? You choose whichever you want and explain. I just want to understand the claim that human greatness is the subject of art.

>>7045821

Shitposting is subjective really. Still, why did the mods let it survive for a week before banning me anyway?

>>7045816
What do you mean?

>>7044721
yoko ono has good music though. listen to Fly, far better than any beatles album. it sounds like an early krautrock album

why it got to be photorealistic?

>>7045200
>>7045818
Anyone? Will any book on the history of art be good enough?

>>7046174
My art teacher recommended me Gombrich and Janson for general entry level history of art. I've read Gombrich and his "Story of Art" was excellent imo.

Enjoying the idea behind the artwork is very much like enjoying the plot over the prose.

>>7046209
Thanks anon, will check it out

>>7044652
all of the other peoples' art is much better than hitler's.

>>7046242
>only reading for good prose

>>7044605
there is one of these with the red palm tree, what's the piece called? it looks amazing

>>7044600
this does not seem right.

>>7044730
>uses picasso as an example of a bad artist
absolutely laughable.

Against Interpretation. Sontag's essays in general

I've come back with some amusing examples of contemporary art taken from the latest issue of Art Review.

A piece like this I think proves my point that contemporary art is stuck in a feedback loop and has been so since at least the 1980s. The description given in the text is that this work is an exploration of products that have been taken off the market for various reasons. I challenge anyone to offer a meaning for this work beyond 'something something consumerism, culture of excess, mass production and alientation' and so on

Artistic value is subjective. There is no objective barometer that can be used to measure the absolute value of a piece of art. Any criteria we select in an attempt to determine the value of a piece of art have been selected based on subjective preference, and so do not provide an objective measure of value.

With that in mind, if you don't like modern art, that's fine. I don't - it does absolutely nothing for me. I imagine a great deal of those who profess their love for it are insincere, either consciously or unconsciously. An emperor's new clothes kind of situation.

>>7046723
wanting everything to have "meaning" is a pretty shallow way of experiencing art. Especially visual art

>>7044591
What people don't understand is that there is art, there is illustration and there are aesthetic pieces, and there are numerous other subjects. Art is a very complicated field that keeps expanding through every generation, just like technology and music, ... you name it.

I don't want to get into too much detail. But let me just say that not all art is aesthetic. Not all aesthetic pieces are art. Not all illustrations are art. Not all art is illustrative. It's a very complex territory that is very intriguing to explore. My best advice is that you read at least some basic brief on art history and the different styles. It will give you some insight on why some of the most simplest pieces are so important in the art world.

Person who made >>7044668 is a retard who knows nothing about art at all. I'm also guessing it was made by a fat as a fatass fedora wearing neckbeard fagtron. This reminds me of those "born in the wrong generation" youtube comments.

>>7046723
your view is honestly retardedly skewed

>>7046755
>x is not art
welp.

>>7046771
You sure convinced me with that hot argument, hothead.

>>7046778
it's just personal opinion at this point.

>>7045864 here

I'm still waiting for a reply

>>7045833
yikes

>>7044591
>>7044591
Start of with going to musuems that have modern art. Preferably big ones with a good and old reputation ( I don't know which ones are closest to you).

Second read this The Story of Art by E.H. Gombrich. It's a good starting point into art history.

where my richter bros @?

>>7046723
What's wrong either those interpretations anon? Why are those unsuitable? What meaning can you give to a still life of a fruit bowl? I understand that there is a more tangible skill that has gone into the fruit bowl but don't you experience any sort of thrill at seeing the expectations and artistic norms defied in contemporary art? Doesn't it stir anything in you? Don't you eventually get tired of the staleness and rigidity of traditional art? I couldn't just view contemporary art but I find it immensely refreshing after taking in a lot of realist art

>>7046755
The definitions that compose your argument (particulary for the words art and aesthetic) exclude some works arbitrarily, or assign some kind of merit to others in an arbitrary manner.

Art is personal expression. That makes almost everything art. Perhaps you think that is not all that useful a concept - you would be correct, but then nobody said that it had to be useful either.

In the early 20th century art took a step away from just vague conceptions of beauty and equilibrium to focus more on the conceptual level of a work. This is not just recognized by filthy capitalism dogs like everyone hiping Warhol but even Heidegger considers a much more important factor the level of insight a piece can produce in the spectator than the sensible characteristics of the work.
That doesn't mean that to apreciate modern art you need to reject classical works, it's actually the opposite. Someone who can understand a piece beyond the superficial layer should be able to do the same with any work. Someone who only likes a certain period of art, whether it is modern or classical or ultra localized, is just a ludite.

I would recommend reading Heidegger's analysis of Van Gogh's Old Shoes and just going to museums to see the actual pieces instead of pictures on your screen.

>>7046827
Art is not always a personal expression. Most of the time it's not even an expression at all. And not everything is art.

This post is my personal expression, slight annoyance hides behind it. Yet, this post isn't art. Although this post does have a visual representation. Still, it's not art.

Your definition of art is obsolete and very naive.

>>7044591
There's nothing to appreciate. It's all shit.

If you don't like art you're a fag and a pleb. The importance of art is binary. Do you like it, yes or no. That's it. No matter how hard you cry or shit, art you don't like will not go away. Art you do like, however will continue being good to you no matter how much someone else cries and shits.

pic related it's one of my favorite abstract expressionist pieces.

>>7046753
For you, perhaps. For me, yes it is important. But there's something beyond that. Those cans do have 'meaning', the artist is maybe making a point or trying to reveal something to the world, what I'm saying is that what he is showing us is in itself shallow and of no importance.

Also, I find it hard to understand where you're coming from; why is it shallow to want meaning? Is meaninglesness deeper than meaning? Is pure emotion (a la Rothko) better? If anything I'd say that creating emotion through meaning would be better.

>>7046824
As you say, on the one hand I do get pleasure from mere technique with the bowl of fruit, but of course there's no great quality in painting a bowl of fruit (except that one by Caravaggio, that one is genuinely great dammit). That said, I'd rather have that than cans, and if you don't understand why, I don't think I can explain it this time.

And I must say, I don't get any kind of thrill out of seeing the expectations and artistic norms defied in contemporary art for a very simple reason: for 50 years now we haven't had artistic norms and expectations, this is the whole issue with postmodernism. What is the 'rebellion' against anymore? There is no salon, there is no school to rise against, there is only an echo chamber of rebellion that may have made sense in 1900-1940, but not today.

Furthermore, I love the rigidity of traditional art, it forces artists to be creative but at the same time forces them into some common ground with the viewer. The logical conclusion of pure conceptual and abstract art is a work of art that can only be fully understood and appreciated by one mind - that of the artist who made it. So I view that as much more stale than having a more traditionalist approach that can incite discussion more readily.

Finally I leave you one more art project from the same magazine as before, this time with some deep thoughts about selfies.

>>7045388
yngwie is just another extreme where it's all technical ability but no beauty.

>>7044591
>I want to understand and appreciate modern art.
>I want to understand
Get a bullshit art degree at a modern art education facility. Or alternatively just be an idiot to begin with and keep your money and time.
>and appreciate modern art.
See above. Either get a phony degree which allows you to say "oh yes this piece is very well done it's very X and symbolizes Y" or just be an idiot to begin with and say "it makes me feel Z way", and don't forget to read the plaque explaining why the "art piece" is in a place meant for art.

>>7047171
/thread

there's an insane surplus of images right now, so you can't really grasp how they were important in the past

>>7046792

Your egyptian painting example is comparing apples and oranges. The idea that art is about human greatness as that guy said is itself an invention of the Renaissance that you can accept or refute, it's not an objective truth.

>>7044591
Art?

>>7047208
Yeah, I can accept it or deny it, but that's not why I made that post. I'm asking him to explain why does he hold that belief and to give an example and arguments in favour. (By the way, nowhere did he indicate that the theme of art we're talking about is exclusive to renaissance. The text in >>7045039 treats it as some sort of a universal truth.)

>>7044652
Hitlers art is just beating a dead horse, everything else challenges the status quo

>>7044668
Im not even a fan of Rokhtko but even that is preferable to the painting you'd find in a dusty frame at a garage sale or your grandmothers house

>>7047178
>deepness
>meaningfulness
do you even like art, or just concepts?