/lit/ - Literature

I like

>>8849942
I think /lit/ is generally hostile towards it because they don't have the luxury of decades of critical thought to tell them what is good and why it's good. Kind of like contemporary literature.
Also they always seem to forget that time weeds out the works not worth remembering.
All of that said, my thoughts: I think abstract expressionism did all it could do in the 50's and 60's, everybody afterward is meaninglessly repeating the same styles and concepts.
Large museums having sizable collections of contemporary/modern works has altered the landscape of the art world. Artists have realized they can make large works that could in no way be pieces in the homes of collectors and make a living on that. By moving in that direction, many artists know they can't do anything terribly bold, just big and visually interesting. This is especially detrimental because the museums that can afford to buy and display these large works are almost universally funded by the government in some way, which really means something that isn't "safe" can't be purchased. Think of the size of the works groundbreaking painters and artists were creating in the early 20th and 19th century, before they hit it big. The impressionists didn't go large [for the most part] until they were critical darlings.
Point being, the best contemporary works are probably something your average /lit/izen won't have access to for at least a couple decades. Museums give a skewed perception, while the actual worthwhile work is being displayed and sold in galleries most of us haven't heard of.

>>8849996
I don't agree, I think that nowadays the public and critics are ready to accept any work of art no matter how groundbreaking. In fact, what sets apart the contemporary public from the one that came before it is the tolerance and demand of more shocking expositions. Anti-art has been given official backing for a long time now, and the question is what is left to be subverted if such pieces are now part of museum collections. Perhaps critics and museums will take time to recognize the great pieces of our period, but that will be for lack of historical perspective rather than the boldness of such pieces.

NEVER GONNA FALL FOR

>>8849996
>I think /lit/ is generally hostile towards it

Surely you mean the rest of the 4chan? We love Newman, Rothko, Pollack, Kline, et al. here. Or did you mean /lit/ hates contemporary, socially-directed 'interpretation art?' Because that's true.

How modern are we talking? My understanding of art limited to what I learned in art history courses, which tend to stop around Warhol. For what it's worth I love all that vaguely-controversial 20th century art. Dada, surrealism, abstract expressionism, the pop artists, all that supposedly degenerate shit that Tom Wolfe allegedly hates.

I like some of it. Dislike a lot of it.

Vladimir Kush is probably my favorite. Had the chance to meet him recently at a gala in California. Pretty cool dude.

Canvas goes in trashcan, artist goes in gas chamber.

>>8849996
kek, you truly are a retard

It's what some people pretend to understand to feel superior to the 'plebs', while in fact they also think it's garbage.

It's a Jewish money laundering service

It's shit.

>what if, like, nothing matters? like dude everybodys so alienated amirite
>so to represent that im gonna throw random shit on a canvas and call it groundbreaking even though there has been literally thousands of hack "artists" like me making the exact same conceptual point for decades
>when people dislike it on an aesthetic level I'll just say they don't get it!
Postmodern/conceptual art was good early on, like Duchamp, Schwitters, and so on, but now it's the most trite and repetative bullshit imaginable. Art is a product now, and instead of fighting against this, postmodernists embrace their nihilism and make a show of their alienation, with diminishing returns.

Not for me, but I don't think badly of anyone who's into it.

Conceptual art loves to reuse concepts. It's laugable that in this age people still think they're doing anything new by "challenging people's notions of beauty". Have you ever talked to a conceptual artist? They're parroting bullshit they read from Dada essays, they don't have anything to say or any read aesthetic sense, they're just very pretentious. They think they're rebelling but they ARE the establishment. Their audience just pretends to be shocked by blood and sex, they don't truly give a shit. And they're so free that nobody will ever tell them, "you can't do this", like they want. They're like liberals who want some sort of social oppression to fight against, so much that they push degenerate and destructive behavior in an effort to be rebellious and shocking. But faux-rebellion and shock is the backbone of our societies now, we can't be shocked. So we need a new goal.

>>8850053
Just admit it. There are no great pieces now. You think Picasso was some unknown before he died?

I like Kandinsky, Pollock, Rothko, Tobey, Klee and Twombly a lot. Everyone seems to have a hard-on for Kline but once you've seen one of his works you've seen them all.

I abhor plebs who say things like "modern art is shit, anyone could do it" or "it doesn't even represent anything, therefore it's worthless" just as much as I hate plebs who think they can be the next Pollock just by haphazardly throwing some paint at a canvas with no regard for aesthetic consideration of form or colour.

>>8850234
>haphazardly throwing some paint at a canvas with no regard for aesthetic consideration of form or colour.
Just like Pollock, then?

>>8850234
I love how psueds complain that pre-20th century art is "irrelevant". "formulaic", and "too representational" and then go to a gallery of very similar-looking splotches of paint on a canvas and praise it as revolutionary. Because to them, form, symbolism, and representation doesn't exist, only novelty and sensationalism is worthwhile.

>>8850204
This is the problem I have when I talk to art students. They literally cannot wrap their heads around the fact that what is avant-garde in 1920 might not be avant-garde now. They have this idea that the conventional and the avant-garde are two unchanging categories, and that their work is somehow groundbreaking for repeating the same tired experiments as other avant-gardists.

There's also the problem (and this is a problem I think across all artistic fields) that art (at least in the last 200 years) has progressed by assimilating the avant-garde into the conventional. The experience of being shocked and challenged by a work of art is key to this process. I'm talking about the "jolt" that's been talked about previously by a tonne of thinkers. The problem now is that this "jolt" is basically impossible to produce in an audience, because nothing is formally shocking anymore.

We have to go back, and re-sensitize ourselves to less experimental art. At least that's the way I see it.

>>8850256
Actually nevermind, i realized there's a lot of Pollock i really like.
I still prefere Kazuo Shiraga, though.

>>8849942
Its an excellent pleb filter, one of the best

>>8850281
This is the only reason i like koons and hirst.

>>8850288
>i like koons and hirst

>>8850269
Avant-garde was a mistake, a 20th century mistake.

>>8850299
Your post is the same as mine, senpai. That's exactly what i was trying to convey.

>>8849942
Btw why do we never have /art/ threads on /lit/ like we use to?

>>8850308
early 20th century art was god-tier though. The issue isn't "modern" art, it's postmodernism.

>>8850310
Why don't we have a good art board on 4chan?

>>8850310
Because they get spammed with ">>/his/" into oblivion

>>8850308
Eh, these were necessary developments as I see it; we just need to be able to move on and realize that the 21st century is going to involve the rediscovery of the virtues of classicism in the art world, and hopefully realism (beyond kitschy victorianism) in the world of fiction. I.e the rediscovery of non-experimental art's functions and virtues

>>8850318
I agree with you, I was reacting to anon's conservative take on art history.

>>8850326
>tfw this is exactly my goal as an artist
Is this what the beginning of a new art movement feels like?

Who are some good artists working today?

>>8850346
Mail carriers.

I like most of it, from the physical landscapes artists create as well as video based art Gordon Douglas probably being my favorite though I also enjoy Phil Collins, Hookyas and Stansfield

>8849942
>8850058
It's not really work, just the power to charm

>>8850219

Picasso's early work was unironically better than the gimmicky stuff he invented/capitalized upon. I saw some of it in the Barcelona Picasso museum.

Van Gogh and post-impressionism is about as far as I go in expressionism.

>>8850336
I sure as fuck hope so.

What are we gonna call it?

Are you a writer or a painter?

>>8850412
>Are you a writer or a painter?
both

>>8850322
This to be quite honest

In fact, I can't think of there being a good art forum anywhere on the internet.

>>8850323
was /his/ the biggest mistake of 4chan history?

Literally what was the need for that board? We still have all the threads we used to have, and it just gives shitty uncultured anons a chance to force good content off this board. Nobody's gonna have a decent /art/ thread on /his/. It's literally just a space for /pol/ and leftist normies to butt heads

>>8849942
Pure garbage. Artists should stop making up excuses for failing to live up to the standards of excellence.
https://youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

>>8850416
Nice. Good luck with your work man. I sincerely believe this is what the art world needs right now.

>>8850346
I can vouch for this guy>>8850416

>>8850412
It is called a return to order. To think there is something new to this attitude shows how little this mindset cares about history, ironically.

>>8850416
>tfw dabble in painting, writing and music but can't dedicate to one discipline

>>8850425
>POSTING THE PRAGER
>PRAGER UNIVERSITY
>EVER
>PRAGER UNIVERSITY VIDEO
>POSTING THE
>VIDEO EVER
>EVER POSTING
>THE PRAGER UNIVERSITY
>VIDEO
>EVER
>THE PRAGER UNIVERSITY VIDEO
>POSTING EVER
>EVER POSTING THE PRAGER UNIVERSITY VIDEO EVER
why would you do this to yourself anon?

>>8850234
Looks like my notebook scribbles. Truly your taste is refined and intellectual.

>>8850433
Because it makes you asshurt.

>>8849942
My boy Rog said it better than I ever could.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

>>8850433
I think they make decent videos.

>>8850428
Mr au-fait seen it all before nothing's new to this guy he's seen it all before thanks very much for input

Obviously, nothing is necessarily new about the concept of pulling back from an experimental period in art. There is something very distinct about the need to deal with an audience who has been so battered by avant-garde forms for a hundred years, that they can no longer experience any kind of pleasure from the new because the new has become old-at. And the task of radically re-sensetizing this audience has little to do with the return to order of the 20th century, which was based on nostalgia for the lost pre-war world. It's very obvious that the audience that the audience of the 1920s could still experience shock, considering the fact that the avant-garde developed beyond this point for thirty more years.

It's fairly apparent to everyone that our contemporary situation is different, and that the avant-garde has no answers. So, this is not just a rehash of a previous movement, but the only direction left to go.

And you're a symptom of the problem. You couldn't even things changing, because you've seen it all before. People like you can't experience anything new and that's exactly what my post was diagnosing. So thanks for proving that point man.

>>8850447
>>8850469
If his grad students can't tell that's not actually a Jackson Pollock painting, then it says a lot more about the quality of a Prager education, than about modern art

>>8850346
Chris Marker and Chris Burden were both pretty good but both have died within the past few years. I like James Turrell and a lot of the people I know like him but I know elsewhere a lot of people think he's a hack.

>>8850472
Plese, tell me more about myself and what art is to you. I gather it is a direction to take, the last remaining. I promise I won't project or be mean.

>>8850496
Well, could you reply with some substance, or is being a snide, sarcastic little prick your only party trick?

>>8850516
I am genuinely interested in your idea that art is taking the last direction possible. How's that for substance, you aggressive prick?

>>8850433
not an argument :^)

>>8849942
I would literally put that on my living room wall.
Looks more interesting than most realistic paintings I have seen (not saying I would in general put abstract over more grounded stuff).

>>8849942
Debased, barely even art. No techne involved.
CIA conspiracy gone too far.

>>8850269
Are there any current movements that you think are pushing the envelope?

>>8850532
Well, sorry for misinterpreting your post. You know the way this website is sometimes.

I think that throughout the 20th century, we can cay that the central technique of art was to engage in a defamiliarizing effect, or what's better described as a "jolt". When you think about the reaction contemporary audiences would have had to the progressive works of the century, they would have experienced a sense of (probably quite extreme) surprise at the way in which the art-form was applied. What this provided them with is a surpassable barrier. When they read Ulysses, they were given such a barrier, but the progressively-minded (in artistic not political terms) would have been able to extract meaning from the text and the effort is what gave it its impact.

However, this effect can no longer be reached. We are too used to art that provides us with this kind of formal barrier, that even if it doing something new, we have simply come to expect this. The jolt is par for the course in modern art (incl. literature).

The only direction that art can go in, is backwards in a constructive manner (the "in a constructive manner" being the most important part; nostalgia is not conducive to this purpose). The side effect of the "jolt" is that with each successive impact the viewer or reader becomes more desensitized to the detail of the work. We are nowadays unlikely to comment on the way an artist has represented the human figure unless they have put their arms where their legs should be and given them three eyes (an exaggeration but I hope my point carries through). This is what I mean by the process of re-sensitization, a reacquainting of the audience with the smaller, more modest technical details of the piece. In literature, this might map onto character, considering the way postmodern literature is noted for sub-par (and deliberately so) character construction.

It's misleading to refer to this as a single direction. Because there are as many roads going back as there are going forward. There are a million ways this reorientation towards the artwork can be achieved, but what is important is that it can be achieved.

That's what I think, and I'm not going to force anyone to see it that way. But I'd appreciate if they at least considered it.

>>8850581
see
>>8850348

>>8849942
It's interesting. But I don't like art for critics. I'd rather see societally-relevant art than art-related art.

>>8850581
not him but many areas of computer art and interactive art are yet unexplored

honestly though, human art changes very little over incredibly long periods of time and what changes is the mode of expression. the art of the 20th and 21st centuries have obviously been driven by the rapid technological changes and the rise of global societies/networks

Contemporary art is a CIA psy op and a Jewish money laundering scheme.

I suppose some of it is conceptually neat though, I particularity like some performance art.
There's Vietnamese dude or whatever, who did crazy shit like live in a cage for a year, and clock into one of those work punch card things every hour for over a year.

If anything things like women shitting out eggs of paint is funny at least.

>>8850581
I'm really not an expert in the fine arts, very far from it. I can only really comment on literature.

It's too early in the century to talk about a movement. At least I hope that's the case. I honestly believe that any new movement which is likely to do what I'm talking about will be forced to take advantage of some form of alternative publishing (not necessarily self-publishing, but certainly not traditional publishing), since these ideas simply are not fashionable. I mean, you can look at someone like Franzen, but is Franzen really doing what it is we're talking about here? Is he really reorienting us to think about something like character in a new, more attentive light? I thought so, reading the first part of The Corrections, but then I got to the part with the talking turd, which is pure Pynchon-lite, and all that hope was lost.

One of these days /lit/ will produce a zine which will rival The Egoist. I guarantee it. You can't have this many people gathered in this kind of atmosphere of dedication and elitism, without producing good work eventually.

Modern art is great, contemporary not so much, in my opinion. 2017 will be terrible with the amount of political stuff that they will push through (like what we have actually isn't enough), Art Basel and some biennales already made a preview of what is to come..

Anyways, best 2016 artwork passing through.

>>8850631
>not him but many areas of computer art and interactive art are yet unexplored
they're called memes

>>8850581
Hal Foster, american art theorist and critic, located in his 2015 book "Bad New Days" four tendencies (or paradigms, as you wish) that are pushing the envelope to affirm themselves as some kind of neo-neo-avant garde. They are: abject, archivel, mimetic and precarious art.

You can read more about it here: https://www.versobooks.com/books/1961-bad-new-days

>>8849942
i like some works but in general i don't like modern art

pretentious Ellsworth Kelly-type shit is dumb
literal garbage ''''sculptures'''' or '''installations''' are dumb too

>>8850611
Thanks for calming down and offering me an explanation. I agree that a constructivist tendency seems at play in the formation of new art. But I think that instead of using it to shape the public, reeducating an audience to appreciate some art (a heavy-handed political process that is rather scary), artists, to make their art work, will be using whatever the details you speak of have become in the public's eye.

>>8850653
that's right, those of us who were alive before the internet will find it hard to see as anything other than novelty. but you have new generations growing up who are completely familiarized with social media, video games, cgi, etc and will begin to utilize them as more than just shallow forms of entertainment or functional softwares... like the avantgarde has been doing since the 70s but this time instead of a few lines being generated on a tube-and-resistor screen we have the ability to create and control entire virtual worlds

>>8850732
I take issue with the idea that what I'm proposing has any political element whatsoever. You should remember that the avant-garde of the 20th century was a largely reactionary movement, so moving in the opposite direction is hardly likely to be inherently reactionary. The process is not so much re-education, as recovery of elements of the artwork which have been buried by the priorities and privilegings carried out by the avant-gardists.

I'm not sure what you mean by using these more modest details in terms of "what they've become in the public's eye", and could you also develop what you mean by a "constructivist tendency"?

>>8849942
Its a scam, everyone knows its a scam. Good art is almost non-existent in traditional circles as of 2016. You are more likely to see beautiful art on /d/ than in an art school.

>>8850794
By constructivist tendency, I am referring to the productive component of art-making -or reproductive, in the case of post-modernism. I'm thinking about poiesis.

Beauty, in a traditional sense, is always recognized. Furthermore, for a modernist like Beaudelaire, the beautiful is always bizarre. The details lie on this threshold, explored by early post-modernists like Duchamp, with the readymade.

>>8849996
History paintings, the highest form of painting in the academies from the 17th century on, were always large scale, and people were trained to make them. Small-scale works were portraits, devotional images, still lives, etc. and later genre scenes and stuff that the growing middle-class liked and wanted for their home. Large-scale oil painting has been the prime example of painting for centuries.

>>8850185
Real-world examples?

Also >aesthetic

>>8850204
I don't think any contemporary artist, conceptual or otherwise, is trying to 'challenge ... beauty'. Most contemporary art is safe, technically-proficient photography, and the stuff that is painting is usually people doing 'graphics' or whatever. They're trying to make money so they're not challenging anyone really except maybe expressing queerness or whatever.

>>8850269
The error is in thinking form has to be experimental to shock us. Beautiful (or at least unobtrusive) form and meaningful content will make good art all the time.

>>8850269
Art students now don't really represent the 'art world' per se. Surely the 19th century had the same kind of art students just copying Academic art with any innovation and now history doesn't remember them in favour of Realisme or the Impressionists.

>>8850318
What's the difference to you? What have postmodern artists done that isn't first seen in early modern collage or Duchamp?

>>8850326
We already have film and TV for this.

>>8850472
The avant-garde certainly does have answers, just "most artists" (I don't even know if this is true but it seems to be the subject) take the avant-garde at face value rather than trying to work out how it functions.

>>8850964
Nothing, that's why it's shit.

>>8849942
What a coincidence OP, I had a few hours before my flight in Nice today and went to MAMAC. The Yves Klein IKB stuff should really be experienced in person. It's an almost unsettling colour.

>>8850611
In what way would Rothko be defamiliarising?

I love modern art. Appreciation of "modern art" takes a longer period of time. The average joe can see a painting by one of the old masters and say "Wow, that's really good!" simply because it's technically well done and looks real.

Modern art is an acquired taste and it's actually very fun to get into. Once you discover a certain ascetic that appeals to you, you can then look for other artist's with similar styles and go from there.

This thread is full of hilariously misinformed generalisations about "modern" (by which is meant contemporary) art. It's the people criticising "modernism" who are stuck in the 1920's.

>>8850996
>pic
>tfw I could have been a famous artist at 7

>>8850979
So you think any repeated subjects of pre-Modern art are also shit?

>>8850984
no its not anon, YK is playing you. The turning the color into an object of artistic fetish is the whole point - it no longer is just a color, it's a brand. The unsettlement you talk about is bullshit because it is born out of your own preconception that this isn't just any color.

it's what i think most often about

>>8851017
Colour has been an object of artistic fetish since caveman paintings.

>>8850996
aesthetic*

>>8851001
>I could have been a famous artist at 7

Why must everyone who dislikes abstract art say that? Many "modern" artists with abstract styles can draw or paint with just as much realism as an old master. But the goal of an artist isn't to create something that you couldn't, it's to create something new and interesting.

Open your mind man, you might just find something you like.

>>8851028
>Why must everyone who dislikes abstract art say that? Many "modern" artists with abstract styles can draw or paint with just as much realism as an old master. But the goal of an artist isn't to create something that you couldn't, it's to create something new and interesting.
>Open your mind man, you might just find something you like.
It's just a joke man, I do personally appreciate some postmodern art on an aesthetic level. But most of it is unimaginative shit.

>>8849942
Modern art are a lot of things OP - Abstract Art is only one of them, in all its forms.
I'm a big fan of "The London School" which is unbelievably rich with great painters. Freud, Bacon and Auerbach are all incredible.

>>8851034
Almost like 'originality' was an idea challenged by postmodernism or something.

I'm not saying I love it, but it does get the senses working.

It's a modern form of expression. There should be nothing you should be ashamed of; it's where it's at.

>>8850998
art threads are always /cringe/
most of the posts are pasta

>>8851040
Well, the point has been made.

Why do psueds think that art is either realist or literal scribbles?

>>8849942
A lot of it is random garbage. It's satirical reality, the impersonation of today's elitist vanity.

A modern art fan will appreciate every random junk that you present him as long as you tell him it is art, invent an interesting background story for it and set the price high enough.

>>8851017
>preconception that this isn't just any color.
Well of course it's just a colour - what I think is unsettling is how matt it is - the pigment absorbs all of the light, there is no glare - if anything there is a slight purple shine to it.
Of course this could be said for a lot of cobalt blue paint.

>>8850611
>The only direction that art can go in, is backwards in a constructive manner
architectural post-modernism tried this already, with awful results.

most modern and cont art detractors havent read fuck all about both periods, so theyre easy to ignore. plus its not the people you will encounter in an art gallery anyways. so who cares? the fact that art is visual makes ordinary people think their opinion about it is worth something. the opinion that the visual arts are for everyone is a naive one, it never was and will never be.

>>8850631
>not him but many areas of computer art and interactive art are yet unexplored
the only interesting thing I've read in this thread

>>8851091
>you just don't get it!
Maybe I get it too well

>>8851091
>the opinion that the visual arts are for everyone is a naive one, it never was and will never be.
kill yourself

the idea that visual arts are objective is a naive one, it never was and never will be.

>>8849955
I really, really, really like this painting.

>>8851100
yeah like roger scuton and that guy from prager university, right?

>>8851102
who said that?

>>8851070
Why do you consistently type psued, ye jungen dichter?

>>8851119
>yeah like roger scuton and that guy from prager university, right?
sort of but not really tbqhwyfam

>>8851119
>actually claiming you have greater knowledge/insight into art and culture than Roger Scruton

I'm genuinely embarrassed for you, anon

name some relevant artists that primed in this century

>>8851135
>argument from authority

>>8851141
*tips name of fallacy*

>>8851135
i dont sell myself to the tobacco industry, at least.

>>8850269
>>8850611

You cannot, or better yet, you have no reason to reconstruct "classical" beauty standards nowadays.

Anything that was expressed 200 years ago has no point in being repeated nowadays.
In this sense, there is no separation between 1910's avant-garde and a 1700's painting

>>8850998
>It's the people criticising "modernism" who are stuck in the 1920's.
Usually true, though thats more the fault of the development of western art since the 1920's than of these people.

>>8851135
""""insight""""

>>8849942
Posting this here cos its triggering me so much atm and is pretty related

Have you guys noticed how much light, colour and vibrancy are distorted in most electronic devices today? New phones, tablets, computers and TVs are more and more using screens (usually LED) that favour cute colour schemes and harmonies over accurate representation. I don't even know how to describe it properly but it's something you know when you see. It's the same effect you get with digital and film photography

Pic related (digital left vs film right)
Everything in digital format looks muted, flat, uniform and sterile. There's no life or energy in the picture. Looks like cute computer generated trash.
The right actually reflects how I and I assume everyone see things in the real world. Where colours and light tell you about the inward state of a thing. Digital format doesn't do that

I hope I'm not alone in seeing this. I only post it here cos digital art and film seem to picking it up and running with it and I wonder how it will affect us in the long run

>>8851091
>most modern and cont art detractors havent read fuck all about both periods
"contemporary" isnt even a good period definition. In fact, its a completely gratuitous term. When does contemporary art start? With Conceptual Art? Abstract Expressionism?

>>8851166
its just another symptomatic condition of our current
H Y P E R E A L I T Y

The illusion of desire has been lost in the ambient pornography and contemporary art has lost the desire of illusion. In porn, nothing is left to desire. After the orgies and the liberation of all desires, we have moved into the transsexual, the transparency of sex, with signs and images erasing all its secrets and ambiguity. Transsexual, in the sense that it now has nothing to do with the illusion of desire, only with the hyperreality of the image.

The same is true for art, which has also lost the desire for illusion, and instead raises everything to aesthetic banality, becoming transaesthetic. For art, the orgy of modernity consisted in the heady deconstruction of the object and of representation. During that period, the aesthetic illusion remained very powerful, just as the illusion of desire was for sex. The energy of sexual difference, which moved through all the figures of desire, corresponded, in art, to the energy of dissociation from reality (cubism, abstraction, expressionism). Both, however, corresponded to the will to crack the secret of desire and the secret of the object. Up until the disappearance of these two powerful configurations -- the scene of desire, the scene of illusion -- in favor of the same transsexual, transaesthetic obscenity, the obscenity of visibility, the relentless transparency of all things. In reality, there is no longer any pornography, since it is virtually everywhere. The essence of pornography permeates all visual and televisual techniques.

http://insomnia.ac/essays/the_conspiracy_of_art/

>>8851173
normally, people involved in the field take everything after ab ex as contemporary. some people can dispute this, but it does not really matter, in practical terms. more recently, you will have people like richard meyer and terry smith arguing that 'contemporary art' (and then they use it as a label for everything done since 1960 to 2010 more or less) is already over and we're entering a new period.

>>8851161
We shouldn't reconstruct "classicism", we need to make new values for art. Art in general is how it is because it's reflecting the nihilistic state of the world right now. Postmodernism just wants to deconstruct, satirize, and destroy everything, and when everything has been thoroughly deconstructed so there's nowhere left to go.

Also, remember. "Bad artists copy, great artists steal". Great artists have something to say and have no issue with learning from various sources and stealing aesthetic ideas, techniques, etc from them. It's not as black-and-white as "formulaic" and "innovative", art is evolutionary.

>>8851119
the appreciation of visual arts is born into every human, it could never be "not for everyone" unless you're creating some artificial divide between academics or critics and the common people

>>8851161
>implying that art requires novelty or originality to be worthwhile
SPOOKED

literally everything has been done before, your 1910s avant-garde could express the same thing as the 1700s painting, just in a different way. human emotions never change and political and societal values cycle and repeat. the only thing that has really progessed in a linear fashion is technology, which only informs the means of expression and not the expression itself

>>8850068
art noob here thanks for sharing the nice painting anon

>>8851166
left has a way better colour scheme, also your example is shit because that picture is probably the one exception to when digital has a more muted palette than film

>>8851213
you fell for the art is pure sensation meme

>>8851223
who painted soup cans before warhol?

>>8851196
Yes, I know all of this.
My point is that Contemporary art never had a coherent aesthetic, or unifying expressive content like all of Modernism. In its myriad movements from so many different countries and realities, Modernism was capable of capturing some fundamental impressions of its time and digest them into comprehensive artistic expression.

"contemporary art", on the other hand, is a bunch of disjointed movements. At best it represents some sort of schizophrenic multitude of (IMO) vacuous content.
Maybe thats the result of a certain reading of its time (our time). But it fails in doing it sincerely.

>>8851223
I think that art has a lot of room for innovation, but that aspect is overplayed by avant-gardists. Avant-gardists see things so narrowly that they could never truly create anything original or relevant within their own reductionist artistic framework. They can't see the larger picture.

>>8851166
>>8851180
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordham_Experiment

>>8851228
see
>>8851102

>>8851091

>ordinary people

Tell me about how special and extraordinary you are anon.

>>8851237
exactly.

>>8851232
so, you can't deal with non-teleological developments?

>>8851212
>We shouldn't reconstruct "classicism"
yes, agree, obviously.

>we need to make new values for art
thats my point, you cant! You say so yourself! The postmodern condition has not been surpassed, and it wont be surpassed so soon. Any attempt to do so, will be a conscious attempt and it will be doomed to failure by inception.
In this, I'm thoroughly Spenglerian.

>>8851223
>implying that art requires novelty or originality to be worthwhile
not at all what I'm saying.

>literally everything has been done before, your 1910s avant-garde could express the same thing as the 1700s painting, just in a different way
completely in agreement!

>human emotions never change and political and societal values cycle and repeat. the only thing that has really progessed in a linear fashion is technology, which only informs the means of expression and not the expression itself
Couldnt agree more actually!
Maybe I would say that while human emotions never change, they are informed by certain trends that are uniquely informed by a persons culture.

>>8851231
warhol is a reflection of the consumerist and mass media/marketing age, something which hadn't previously existed because of technological advancement

>>8851244
>thats my point, you cant! You say so yourself! The postmodern condition has not been surpassed, and it wont be surpassed so soon. Any attempt to do so, will be a conscious attempt and it will be doomed to failure by inception.
>In this, I'm thoroughly Spenglerian.
Explain.

>>8851238
i don't know if you're too deep into this democratic notion of art or you're just too spoiled to see that the ordinary citizen is dumb as fuck

>>8851231
anon

>>8851243
The issue isnt so much about looking for a teleological understanding of any artistic expression, its just that sincerely good, meaningful, beautiful, big H Historical art has an inherent teleological quality to it (borrowing your choice of wording here).

>>8851072
>random garbage

Today's assemblage is no different from various studies of objects brought together in a Renaissance workshop for some tapestry.

It is always the artist's job to take in order to create.

>>8851091
This, but there have been modernist attempts to democratise art, or rather to decompartmentalise art and life.

>>8851251
post a painting that to your mind is an equivalent of what warhol was doing, before warhol did it.

>>8851259
painting:20th century::memes:21st century

>>8851244
>>implying that art requires novelty or originality to be worthwhile
>not at all what I'm saying.

well you said "no point of repeating", which kind of goes against what you just said. I think its okay to work in previous styles as long as you aren't trying to pass yourself off as being something new or original (or outright copying)

>>8851255

I don't know it's not that hard to read a few books on art history. You're probably just a middle class pleb just like all the "ordinary" people you seem to despise. Or are we in the presence of wealth right now?

>>8851140
Hito Steyerl is a contemporary darling, as in 'Berlin contemporary'. But rightfully so.

>>8851273

>>8849942
degenerate

>>8851273
you responded to my post without even reading it. embarrassing.

>>8851261
well, to me movements like minimalism, pop, postminimalism, feminist art, arte povera, nouveau realisme and many others can have all the qualities you mentioned. theyre as relevant as you can get.

>>8851286
>literally everything has been done before, your 1910s avant-garde could express the same thing as the 1700s painting
your words

The thing that kills artists and stints their creativity is excessive self-consciousness. Leave the arguments over movements to the academics.

>>8851173
It doesn't really matter how well that person can define it but if someone wants to go off on modern art or contemporary art they should at least define it themselves. No use talking about 'the state of art today' and referencing Rothko.

>>8851284
a challenge: what came before this one?

>>8851184
>to the energy of dissociation from reality (cubism, abstraction, expressionism)

I'd argue these are attempts to capture reality rather than dissociate from it.

The meme that modern man makes ugly art because he realises that life is ugly is as relevant as 'all your base'. Academics have been working against this idea for decades.

>>8851196
Interesting.

>>8851306

>>8851212
>Art in general is how it is because it's reflecting the nihilistic state of the world right now.

What are you talking about.

>>8851323
lol. you might be right, actually...

>>8851327
Somebody hasn't been paying attention

>>8851213
No, an understanding of Greco-Roman myth is not inherent to every human.

>>8851223
Basically. It can be argued that Michelangelo's Battle of Cascina is as much a comment on its own medium as modernists in the 19th century and after.

The aspect of visual art that is the most neglected right now is the fact that art is a manipulation of symbols and ideas. Art students like to be reductionist and say that it's "just, like, color on a canvas, bro", but there's much more going on there that contemporary art just cannot capture.

>>8851290
can you read?
see
>>8851251

nothing will superficially "look like" a warhol, because no such society had existed before (there were no campbell's soup cans in 1576). but his approach is nothing new -- reaction against the established art world (abstract expressionism), blurring of the distinction between fine artist and graphic designer / businessperson (a distinction which hasn't always existed throughout history), an attempt to bring back familiar visual elements and iconography (from catholic imagery to advertising) which had disappeared from academic art and alienated the average person. warhol painted what he saw. how innovative.

>>8851232
Modernism didn't have a unifying aesthetic, neither did Romanticism, and it's the same for Contemporary. They're periods rather than styles, basically all just non-Academic.

>>8851333
nice non-sequitur. can you try to make whatever point you're trying to make in a less autistic way?

>>8851252
well, I'll assume you know who Oswald Spengler is, and what he wrote.

My point is that, from the perspective of western culture, any truly unique expressive strength has been completely spent already.
Modernism was the last fervorous nihilistic explosion of western expression, already a last degenerative spasm of an artistic tradition that peaked in the 1600's. (when it comes to visual arts)
Dynamic, expansion, infinity, pure abstraction: these were the fundamental concepts of western artistic expression, and nothing more could be said on these issues after Modernism.

Post-Modernity is then the condition of unadmitted hopelessness towards this reality. Therefore its engagement with deconstruction, satire, self-destruction.

Any minimally meaningful art that can come from this scenario can only arrive through the exploration of new mediums (digital interactive comes to mind), but even then its artistic strength will be rather pathetic. Its still the rehash of things that have been said already, in much better ways by people that lived and felt their culture and their time in such a way that no one could really understand now.

>>8851331
I've been paying attention but it's nonsense.

>>8851360
That's a pretty bleak viewpoint. But how exactly can art be "used up"? And is there a particular reason why artists can't find new aesthetic values to build upon? The Renaissance only happened because the Italians rediscovered the Greeks and wanted to imitate them.

See, aesthesis has coupled with entertainment.
It is belong to business.

Art's strategy is now probing perception, to awaken the senses.
It is not about "the quest for beauty", nor "self-expression."

People seldom want to be awakened. They are not aware of transformation, or of new atmospheres, because their response to new atmospheres are the simple tuning in to it. The artist can sidestep these atmospheres, and thus sidestep, in a sense, the general population. He is able to see the problems in the new environment better than anyone else simply because he is the only one who rejects new bias, and proceeds to designing a "perceptual corrective", as it were, as a work of art.

Entertainment feeds the current bias.
It needs not so much the artist but the mere craftsmen. 'Artists' in the skill sense of the word. Not too different from the role of "artists" in the making of propaganda, in the Soviet Union, Germany, the US, etc.

>>8851356
It's not a non-sequitur. How can you appreciate the aesthetics of this work without understanding the myth? Formalist analysis is inadequate for appreciating all art. But so is iconographical. In either case, it's not an inherent ability to all people when post-Renaissance art was specifically made for a literate population to which not all people belonged.

>>8851223
>art doesn't require originality to be worthwhile
So what's your criterion then? The criterion of the most perfect technical execution of some objective artistic standard is impossible ever since machines overtook humans in technical ability.
>human emotions never change
Very debatable. Certainly our categories of emotions and the way we perceive them change.
>political and societal values cycle and repeat
Laughably naive. Find a premodern society which outlawed slavery and allowed women to choose their own husbands.
>technology only informs the means of expression
Art is the means of expression...

>>8851385
This, current entertainment has taken up the mantle of pseudo-photorealistic art of the 19th century produced then also for the middle-class. It's no wonder than in any art thread you see people posting 19th century oil painting; it's the most familiar to them as 'art' since they experience it currently in film.

Why do TV shows have attractive actors? Unobtrusive orchestral scores? etc. Beauty is a vehicle for narrative.

>>8851283
agreed.

One of the few interesting artists out there. She's still to damn limited by the usual narcisistic urges from contemporary art gallery culture.
More interested in giving speeches than actually letting the work talk by itself.

>>8851304
true

>>8851355
by unifying aesthetic I meant a common trend in their visual expression.
Absent Dadaism, Modernism had a common trend towards general abstraction, in large part as a reaction to previous periods. Every Modernist movement can find a common heritage in Cezanne and even earlier on, in the Impressionists.

Same thing happens with Romanticism, etc...

With Post-Modernism this doesnt happen. Movements are aesthetically detached from each other. Pop-Art has absolutely no relation with Conceptual Art, and certainly not with Perfomance Art. Maybe through some sort of theoretical overview a relation appears, but not in any sort of visual trend.

>>8851394
>So what's your criterion then? The criterion of the most perfect technical execution of some objective artistic standard is impossible ever since machines overtook humans in technical ability.
>criterion
>implying
Why can't autists obsessed with "objective criteria" and consider the entire piece in multiple different ways?

>>8851351
>his approach is nothing new

>>8851405
>Absent Dadaism

And Surrealism, which is a major contributor to modern art but still forgotten in favour of Greenberg's Formalism and the Cezanne heritage. Decorative arts too.

But yes otherwise I agree with everything else.

Also interesting I guess is to what degree Nouveau Realisme, other Neo-Dada and conceptual art (and even the Situationists) are 'modern', since they seem to have more in common with what comes after rather than what came before, but still owes so much to Duchamp (and Surrealism)

>>8851413
That doesn't contradict anything you replied to.

>>8851374
>But how exactly can art be "used up"?
the post exactly after yours >>8851385
gives a partial overview of that process, from a practical viewpoint. Its also a truly Spenglerian analysis.

>And is there a particular reason why artists can't find new aesthetic values to build upon? The Renaissance only happened because the Italians rediscovered the Greeks and wanted to imitate them.
Can you change who you are, your personality, by simple will?

The Renaissance was not so much the imitation of the Greeks but rather the interpretation of Ancient Greek cultural expression (Apollonian culture) through the eyes of a westerner, Faustian Culture. It can be seen as a variation of Gothic art honestly, and a limited one at that.

>>8851452
Completely forgot about Surrealism! You're right.

surrealism or dada is nothing next to duchamp. all art that came after is in essence just a reaction to duchamp. he's the guy.

>>8851481
I took a paper that looked at modernism through Surrealism so I've basically been trained to include Surrealism in modernism as much as possible.

>>8851498
>Duchamp
>guy

>>8851405
>Pop-Art has absolutely no relation with Conceptual Art, and certainly not with Perfomance Art. Maybe through some sort of theoretical overview a relation appears, but not in any sort of visual trend.

campbell's soup can is a painted readymade

>>8851519
he's the jew

and we still don't know how to get rid of him

>>8851519
Once you realize it's someone else's arms, you can't unsee it.

what should i watch by Hito Steyerl?

>>8851388
I never claimed "every single person can appreciate every single work of art from history in the exact same way". so I don't know why you're arguing with me. and your example doesn't even work, someone could appreciate that painting without understanding the content (perhaps an Arab merchant found his way into Italy in the 15th century and took a liking to the colour palette)

Did any of you here go to art academy?

>>8851596
why? you left something there?

http://www.artspace.com/magazine/interviews_features/art-fairs/10-of-the-best-artworks-of-art-basel-miami-beach-2016-54424

this is the state of contemporary art

>capitalist decadence
what the fuck

>>8851418
nice discussion.
I prefer this series

>>8851524
>painted readymade
a readymade is essentialy Duchamp's brand of found object art. it could not be something painted

>>8851587
"Liquidity Inc" and "How not to be seen: A Fucking Didactic Educational"

good luck finding it on the internet though.
both used to be in youtube and vimeo, but no more.

I had the chance to see Liquidity Inc in a museum, thats how I first found out about Steyerl in the first place.

>>8851608
not at all. contemporary art is not in the galleries anymore.

>>8851603
Audibly kek'd

>>8851608
yeah, thats all hilariously, cringe-inducingly bad

its seems like something out of an art gallery in Idiocracy

>>8851620
where is it then?

>>8851617
duchamp's "brand"? he INVENTED the whole thing. and that's the CONCEPTUAL part that it WAS painted.

>>8851620
lol what? this is the art people write books about, this is the art that shuffles markets, this is the art that people will look back and think 'oh, that art is so 2010 decade lol', this is the art that will be regarded as art. galleries, biennales, fairs and museums ARE the artworld.

>>8851617
Many ready-mades were painted.

>>8851590
>someone could appreciate that painting without understanding the content

If I show you a word you dont understand, i'm sure you may like the way it sounds, or you could tell me how many syllables it has, but that doesn't mean you've understood the word

>>8851643
for you

>>8851637
instagram

>>8851653
stop being cryptic and answer my question:
>>8851637

>>8851657
basically normal people have become artists and artists have become silly embarrassing gooses. that's your answer.

>>8851656

>>8851663
fight me.

>>8851661
some shitty photo taken with a smartphone with some filter slapped on is not art.

>>8851657
duchamp accidently the whole thing and no one knows what's next

>>8851637
it's adspace on artspace.com

>>8851674
silly anon, this isnt the work of one man

he was just a significant symptom.
But the decay of western visual art started much earlier than Duchamp

>>8851641
he wasn't the first to come up the concept of found object art

>>8851644
not painted by Duchamp, ya dingus. he basically took that advertisement and signed it.

curious why you guys keep insisting that you know what a readymade refers to when you clearly don't.

>>8851646
>if you don't understand a work of art, that doesn't mean you've understood it
do you want a nobel prize for that brilliant observation?

>>8851683
decay? pas du tout! everything is incredibly interesting right now. and duchamp, duchamp is nothing short of sublime.

I can appreciate it. As with anything, the vast majority isn't anything special.

Early 20th Century Modern Art is really where it's at.

I was in China earlier in the year and the amount of galleries and artwork being produced is absolutely insane. Much of it seems to be random bollocks produced for the sake of it, but there's some interesting stuff.

>>8851686
>he wasn't the first to come up the concept of found object art
just fuck off

>>8851686
>he basically took that advertisement and signed it.
i'm done with you

>>8851686
Stop talking out of your ass, you don't know shit.

>>8851683
name another figure to stand next to duchamp

>>8851695
>>8851699
nice discussion, sorry to hear you're still retarded

>>8851708
>>>/g/

>>8851695
>>8851699
http://www.tate.org.uk/learn/online-resources/glossary/r/readymade

Please educate yourselves. Jesus.

>>8851708
How can you read when you don't even use your eyes, anon? Here, have an insult, it's on me.

>>8851674
>>8851688
>>8851695
>>8851699
>>8851705
obsession with one single person like this only shows a severe lack of actual knowledge of Art History

>>8851726
sure, thanks doc

>>8851699
Okay, why is it so hard for you to grasp the concept of found art? You do realize that anon isn't wrong, and he just took a cheap advertisement print and added his name on it along with nothing more than a drop of paint?

>>8851726
name another man nigga! name another man! i'm all ears, come on!

>>8851739
Cezanne, Picasso, Dalí, Balla, Breton, Delaunay, Kandinsky, MALEVICH!

>>8851737
And you want a found art category to subsume something like a ready-made because?

>>8851750
you don't understand duchamp and all your knowledge comes from "art history books"

cezanne is the only real man in that list.

>>8851603
just answer the question

>>8850068
>We love Newman, Rothko, Pollack, Kline, et al. here.
Speak for yourself.

>>8851756
what are you insinuating bro? what are you insinuating?

The visual arts produced in this century thus far are completely irrelevant. I will fight anyone arguing otherwise.

>>8851751
What are you even trying to say? You think ready mades don't count as found art for some reason? Despite being the literally birth of found art as a genre?

>>8851750
malevich is cezanne's bitch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0niXuJUdDY

>>8851771
Cezanne is El Grecos bitch.

>>8851775
don't see how

>>8851783
keep looking then.

>>8851789
ok

>>8851755
>you just dont get it maaaan

>cezanne is the only real man in that list
well, you asked for names, plural, so I gave you more than one guy. If I had to choose only one, it would've been Cezanne.

>>8851771
i dont disagree.
>>8851775
i dont disagree either

>>8851783
you're an idiot

>>8850269
Not memeing, but this is also precisely we we need "New Sincerity" in literature.

>>8851807
no, it would have been malevich because you capitalized his name and only siding with cezanne after i said how great he was

>>8851807
ALSO, i DIDNT ask for "names", i asked to name another MAN

you're so full of wrong. i feel like i need a shower after talking to you. you're probably full on pleb who doesn't know shit about fuck and is also UGLY

and also, i'm watching this steyerl chick, and she just seems net art, what's the BIG DEAL my instagram vids are better

>>8851839
>you're so full of wrong. i feel like i need a shower after talking to you. you're probably full on pleb who doesn't know shit about fuck and is also UGLY

is this the logical conclusion to this thread?

>>8851844
POST IT

>>8851824
>>8851839
my first fucking name is Cezanne. I only capitalized Malevitch because he's the last one in Modernism that I find truly relevant. Cezanne is to the start of the end as Malevitch marks the absolute end of western visual artistic expression.

Duchamp was a proto Postmodernist. He jumped ship on the entire last gasp of western artistic expression that was Modernism and went straight to self denying nihilism

>>8850269
>The problem now is that this "jolt" is basically impossible to produce in an audience, because nothing is formally shocking anymore.
Hi, here to inform you that this problem isn't universal. On this my location, jolting is still possible.

You have to keep exploring.

I presume you're among entirely numbed people. Numbness is naturally a self-protective automatic response towards an overwhelmingly dynamic and stimulating environment. That is itself the jolt. No jolting art required, much the opposite, in fact...

>>8851857
should be the logical conclusion to every thread tbqbh

this thread was fun though. started discussing with fellow anons in a serious manner, and started shitposting by the end

>>8851865
But would Jesus approve.

>>8850068
>Rothko
jesus you could not have chosen a worse """"artist""""

>>8851870
i dont know anon. he would probably be busy yelling how the world would end soon or something like that. like he would give a shit about this place

>>8851871
>I love Pollock and Rothko
Imediate Tryhard alert
Works everytime

>>8851859
>Cezanne is to the start of the end
yes

>Malevitch marks the absolute end of western visual artistic expression.
mondrian and then warhol

>Duchamp was a proto Postmodernist.
ok so ur not total moran

>He jumped ship
he himself is a ship

>>8851865
you must be proud

>>8851871
>>8851859
all, the "art is only what I like" autists have arrived. welcome, friends from /his/ and /ic/

>>8851884
>Mondrian
lolno
>Warhol
I can see where you're going with this, but Warhol is already ahistorical.

>he himself is a ship
ebin

>>8851590
That was your implication:
>it could never be "not for everyone" unless you're creating some artificial divide between academics or critics and the common people

I don't really know what you're arguing.

>>8851643
>the art people

Fucking lol and what

>>8851674
Duchamp was hardly relevant until the 60s.

>>8851926
because it fucking took that long for everybody to even begin understanding him

>>8851844
I watched Is the Museum a Battlefield so that's all that informs me of her work

>>8850269
>portrait of a man being swarmed by carnivorous rose petals

>>8851884
>mondrian and then warhol
Then Sherrie Levine.

>>8851906
holy shit.

if you seriously went from
>the visual arts are for everyone
to
>every single person who ever lived must understand every single piece of artwork every created
then you need to go to a doctor because you may have some sort of mental disorder. or am I being trolled?

>>8851928
No there was just a retrospective in 1959.

>>8851918
>art [that] people
Are you autistic?

>>8851951
Again, no idea why you bring up 'artificial divide' if you're not talking about the role of knowledge in appreciation.

>>8851957
No but you are.

>>8851926
duchamp was relevant to dada, surrealism and cage until the 60's when everyone else caught on

>>8851960
you have autism. all I said was that everyone has the ability to appreciate the visual arts. I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore until you say something coherent

>>8851674
I know what's next.

>>8851984
You keep repeating yourself; maybe you have autism?

Here's the original argument:
>the fact that art is visual makes ordinary people think their opinion about it is worth something.

Yes everyone who isn't blind can see a work of visual art and have opinions on it but, well, you have eyes and you can read the above.

>>8851986
"artists" no longer exist, there is only hive mind, so the "next" will come from the hive mind

>>8851994
Surprisingly accurate.

>>8851991
>the fact that art is visual makes ordinary people think their opinion about it is worth something.
right, and then I told you (or the original poster) to kill yourself for being so absurd as to think that art has objective qualities and that somehow you, random anon, has any right to judge the opinions of others. nothing you've said since then has made any sense.

>>8852002
>It's all like totally subjective man!

Sure, ordinary person.

>>8852004
lmao, you're only digging yourself deeper for the next time you try to assert you don't have autism

>>8852006
You're the one sperging out because someone tried to imply you don't know what you're talking about.

Some people have more well-informed and cohesive opinions on others. How do you read this and think 'art isn't objective'. Is that the only thing you ever contribute to art threads and you just had to add it to this one?

And saying 'art has no objective qualities' is fucking retarded. What do you think its form is?

>>8852008
>Some people have more well-informed and cohesive opinions on others.
what you really mean is that they can articulate it better. that doesn't mean they appreciate it less than you.
>lol xd art is my secret club only i REALLy appreciat this stuff every1 else is jus pretending ..

>And saying 'art has no objective qualities' is fucking retarded. What do you think its form is?
form is a way of describing art, not of judging it. there are no objective criteria with which to judge the intrinsic value of art.

>>8852014
>that doesn't mean they appreciate it less than you.

Ok but 'appreciation power' is not the topic of discussion. It's that people who shit on art without understanding it can be ignored because they don't know what they're talking about.

>there are no objective criteria

'No objective qualities' is completely different from there being 'no objective criteria'.

>>8852014
lol you can value an artwork any way you want, that doesn't mean people (and specially artworld folks) will care.

>>8852027
>Ok but 'appreciation power' is not the topic of discussion.
really, because you are the one who sperged out about how someone who doesn't understand the myth of heracles couldn't possibly appreciate a painting about him

>It's that people who shit on art without understanding it can be ignored because they don't know what they're talking about
uh, no, you said "the visual arts are not for everyone". which is what I was arguing against this whole time. you don't even remember what you're talking about.

>'No objective qualities' is completely different from there being 'no objective criteria'.
art has definition, not objectivity. any broad objective statement you could try to make about either the qualities (art is beautiful, art is powerful, art is divine, etc) or criteria for judgement (art which is not beautiful is bad, art which does not follow my definition of good symmetry is bad, etc.) will fall apart

>>8852036
that's why I said intrinsic value of art, the spirit of expression in human society, to exclude things like "price"

>>8852049
It's more that it could not be appreciated fully. But still the subject is about people who are shitting on art out of ignorance not 'appreciation power'.

>uh, no,

I gave you the exact phrasing a couple of posts ago:

>most modern and cont art detractors havent read fuck all about both periods, so theyre easy to ignore. plus its not the people you will encounter in an art gallery anyways. so who cares? the fact that art is visual makes ordinary people think their opinion about it is worth something. the opinion that the visual arts are for everyone is a naive one, it never was and will never be.

Which isn't me but I was arguing along the same lines.

>art has definition, not objectivity.

No, you're right, art doesn't objectively exist...

>any broad objective statement you could try to make about either the qualities (art is beautiful, art is powerful, art is divine, etc) or criteria for judgement (art which is not beautiful is bad, art which does not follow my definition of good symmetry is bad, etc.) will fall apart

So you're saying that detractors don't know what they're talking about and can be ignored because there is no objective criteria for art.

>>8852049
>>8852074
>>any broad objective statement you could try to make about either the qualities (art is beautiful, art is powerful, art is divine, etc) or criteria for judgement (art which is not beautiful is bad, art which does not follow my definition of good symmetry is bad, etc.) will fall apart

Continuing on this point: historically there were 'objective' criteria by which we can judge art. Criteria not being truly objective is beside the point since there are relevant criticisms to make. There is knowledge of the work, there is the context of a work in relation to other works. There are socio-historic and theoretical contexts to be aware of. Criticising Pollock because "it looks like shit" or "it looks easy to make" aren't relevant to the work if you take these contexts into account.

>>8852091
>Criticising Pollock because "it looks like shit" or "it looks easy to make" aren't relevant to the work if you take these contexts into account.
that's fine, but at that point you're an historian.

>>8850346
Soullages
Kiefer
Turrell
Richter

>>8850678
Ellsworth Kelly's work is entirely devoid of pretense, dumbass

>>8851608
the Penone piece isn't too bad, reminds me of Fontana

>>8852335
what the FUCK is THIS shit???

>>8849942
it's mostly shit

>>8850185
Maybe people feel alienated because [spoilers]capitalism inherently operates on the basis of alienation?[/spoilers]

>>8850269
I love art but just w/ a passing interest, I really don't know too much. But that 'jolt' you mention...I suppose that's why I enjoy all forms of art. And maybe it is missing from painting and visual art? I haven't learned enough and don't pay attention enough to know whether that's true BUT I do think that 'jolt' still exists in music.

I'm basing this off nothing but I feel like music and sound will always progress. In every genre that takes the art of it seriously, there constantly seems to be new ideas every year (even if they're slight). Idk, music is really abstract when you think about it...it's a sound painting. I compare it to abstract expressionism, but maybe that's not an accurate comparison. I guess it depends on the genre (I love a lot of ambient/noise stuff as well as structure-less music that bring to mind abstract expressionism to me). Once again, maybe the wrong comparison, but while I can see abstract expressionism being over with as far as new ideas, I feel like there's still so much room for that type of music (or any type even pop) to be avant-garde through new structures, new combinations of sounds, different ways of processing and mixing things, meaning and context outside of the sound itself, such as lyric, and so on.

>>8849942
If that paint sample you've posted is considered art, then Home Depot must be a fucking gallery.

>>8851117
Save it, my friend. It's all yours!

>>8850269
Ironically, the most shocking art today would be something more akin to the realist and baroque art of the 17th and 18th centuries, the exact art that modernist avant-garde artists would like to think they are challenging.

>>8852967
I don't understand how it would be shocking. A lot of artists are working in this style today and have been for a while now.

>>8849942
I hope there will be a rebellion against the YBA and the likes. A lot of my friends are art students and they all despise their work. Fuck YBA, they're the art equivalent of pop music, they're just in it for the money and they make art seem like a joke to the ordinary person.

>>8852442
>>8852442
>what the FUCK is THIS shit???
*pushes you**
BACK the FUCK off???

>>8852515
my theory is that in modern times we've been exposed to music far more than any other form of art as babies and young children, so we are more susceptible to emotional reaction than say, sculpture.

and I wouldn't say music is any less derivative than painting

The moment art started being about category destruction and about nothing being sacred, is the moment art completely lost it's way.

It's one thing being avant-garde, which can be tremendously useful, it's an another thing being a nihilist.

>>8853268
dont make ME paint an elsworth kelly for YOU buddy

didn't read the thread have more to do

art is dead, we'll embrace neuroscience
art was always working for the establishment (just the future one), now it's dead because there's no future human establishment

best regards

>>8850269
>They have this idea that the conventional and the avant-garde are two unchanging categories, and that their work is somehow groundbreaking for repeating the same tired experiments as other avant-gardists.
I don't know what art school they went to, but that's definitely not what's being taught at my school

>>8850425
>hating on Michael Heizer
pleb alert desu

>>8851166
digital is flat and sterile because it's meant to be edited. film pictures are never unedited, it's originally negative which means color correction needs to be applied.

>>8853186
YBA?

>>8853278
Resisting categorization is a sacred thing.

>>8853566
>Resisting categorization is a sacred thing.

No it isn't. It's nihilistic and pathetic.

>>8853578
what artist wants to be categorized?

>>8853585
It's not about what they want. It's whether or not art can even exist in the absence of individuals believing in anything sacred.

And I don't think it can, and I think it shows. Does anyone actually think Serrano's Piss Christ is good art? No they don't.

>>8853029
I don't know anything about art I just wanted to sound smart desu

>>8853598
>Does anyone actually think Serrano's Piss Christ is good art?
Of course there are. You're making no sense.

>>8853639
>Of course there are

Yeah, maybe I spoke too soon. But the people who like it are precisely the people who shouldn't be doing art.

>>8853646
They're not doing art, they're visiting a museum.

>>8853646
nigga, stop talking.

>>8853654
No, I'm not gonna stop talking. In fact now I'm gonna keep talking.

>>8853660
don't be a fool, you will only make a fool out of yourself.

>>8853653
How about actually answering my challenge in earlier posts?

>>8853668
I'm not making a fool out of myself at all. My argument is serious, but you're more interested in shitposting than answering.

>>8853669
What are you even talking about? The only challenge I see in the thread has already been taken and won by anon, twice.

>>8853673
serious question: are you kanye west?

>>8853682
You said here that resisting categorization is a sacred thing, which incredibly facetious.>>8853566

>>8853578
Right, right. Now step inside.

>>8853708
?

>>8853704
are you a nazi?

>>8853734
Absolutely not. But if my being a Nazi is what you're getting from my criticism of contemporary art as being nihilistic and without direction, I think this discussion is over.

>>8853741
It been over for a while. The good thing is that while you were typing that you are not a nazi, art managed to escape.

>>8853757
>It's been over for a while

And yet you smugly keep talking.

I'm betting you're some East-Coast liberal.

>>8853765
Because I like modern art and the subject of this thread. Have fun at the casino.

>>8853779
Why do you like it?

>>8853790
Because it's incredibly varied and the artists that made it often have interesting stories. It is the most acessible and is still what the majority of people recognize as Art and I think it deserves respect.

>>8853817
Can you give me an example of one of your favorite pieces?

>>8853825
Why would I humor you any longer?

>>8853539
young british artists.

>>8853829
I'm genuinely interested. One of the major reasons I don't like contemporary art is because it comes eerily close to social realism which I don't like at all.

But you're saying it's varied, so give me an example if you bother.

>>8853844
You'll have tu use your own eyes on this one.

>>8850234

My favorite artist overlap quite a bit with what you've listed. But I never get why people feel so alienated by those artists because I like them mainly because of aesthetics, which is like instinct. Idk if the average pleb is too rooted in the physical world that abstract is not interesting enough for them.

>>8853927
>Idk if the average pleb is too rooted in the physical world that abstract is not interesting enough for them.

its societal influence, its because they grow up with this idea that their idea of "fine art" looks a specific way. its why plebs have no problem enjoying with abstractly patterned blankets, clothing, etc. but they think an abstract painting or sculpture is ugly

>>8850346
George Condo aint too bad

>>8851166

I get what you mean with the left looking more sterile than the real world but the right is simply oversaturated eye-cancer

>>8852442
yes, what is pretentious about this? it's pure formal play with shape and color. even the title implies such. if it were entitled "The Human Condition" or something, you may have a point. as it stands, it is the least pretentious art I can imagine

>>8854220
more like what is ART about this