/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11250170]

How come modern art is a bunch of postmodern garbage?

[Anonymous No.11250176]

>>11250170
define garbage
define art
define modern
define postmodern
define bunch of

[Anonymous No.11250178]

>>11250176
spot the humanities student

[Anonymous No.11250187]

Decadence. We're living in the end times. Long after this is all over, future artists won't be calling a urinal "art".

[Anonymous No.11250194]

>>11250170
>>11250178
Spot the close-minded /pol/locks who probably don't even like Pollock

[Anonymous No.11250196]

>>11250176
geat a load of this newfag

[Anonymous No.11250203]

>>11250176
Ever heard of a dictionary?

[Anonymous No.11250204]

>>11250176
kys

[Anonymous No.11250209]

>>11250194
lol why are you on a hair trigger to call things /pol/

[Anonymous No.11250210]

>>11250194
Go back to /b/ please.

[Anonymous No.11250241]

>>11250176
this post is art

[Anonymous No.11250246]

>>11250241
No, this one is. Now excuse me while I frame it and sell it on ebay for $50,000

[Anonymous No.11250363]

>>11250241
>>11250246
Why are people implying that this is wrong? We live in capitalism after all, right? If someone is willing to pay 50k for a 4chan post, why not?

>>11250170
>modern art is ... postmodern
Soon the geniuses of 4chan will also realize that renaissance art is mannerist.

[Anonymous No.11250378]

I don't get it, what problem do people have with contemporary art?

[Anonymous No.11250428]

>>11250378
People are idiots

[Anonymous No.11250445]

>>11250428
Must be it. The funniest thing I've seen in a long time was an art thread on /pol/.

[Anonymous No.11250449]

>>11250445
pol has better taste in art than lit purely by being reactionary simpletons and posting Rembrand portraits

[Anonymous No.11250500]

>>11250449
These guys couldn't explain the difference between Rembrandt and some DnD artwork. Liking something for being from the good old days does not count as taste.

[Anonymous No.11250512]

>>11250500
Shouldn't expect the lumpenproles to have taste. They're just latching on to artwork that they think matches their conservative dogma. It's up to the smart ones, the social engineers, to steer them into having a correct taste.

[Anonymous No.11250523]

>>11250500
some of us have advanced to parotting Spengler's opinions on art

[Anonymous No.11250531]

>>11250523
What are they?

[Anonymous No.11250549]

>>11250531
you'd have to read his book. They're very pretty opinions honestly.

Generally speaking they are of the formula art=religion and religion=prime symbol of particular culture. Within Spengler's understanding of 'culture' this means there is a set period during which art can take place. For painting it was already dead by 1800 with one or two exceptions. So the neoclassicists or the imrpessionists get thrown out.

[Anonymous No.11250571]

>>11250549
interesting, thank you.

[Anonymous No.11250576]

>>11250187
And why do you think that Duchamp doesn't qualify as art?

[Anonymous No.11250596]

>>11250576
Duchamp doesn't qualify as art because he's an artist, not art

[Anonymous No.11250605]

>>11250170
>modern art
>postmodern

>tfw I hate lots of modernist and postmodernist culture but hate the people who abuse the terms even more

[Anonymous No.11250609]

>>11250596
Hilarious. But ok, why does Duchamps work not qualify as art?

[Anonymous No.11250611]

>>11250378
I think there's a general consensus that art these days has no perceivable roots or any semblance of having been made following some artistic tradition; that we've abstracted so far beyond the rebellion against the established order undertaken by Impressionism, Cubism, Surrealism, etc., and our avant-garde distancing from all tradition have left us uprooted and stumbling into an artistic sort of myopia where nothing means anything, where art exists as a commentary on art's vapidity, where a boulder alone serves as an artistic critique on the POTENTIAL of the stone to become anything the prospective sculptor could construct it into; there is no longer need for technique. A blank canvas suffices to describe the infinite possibilities for what could be rendered on the canvas.

There's what I believe is a sort of general consensus that art these days is a sort of meta-commentary on the emptiness of society/culture or even art itself by the production of vapid art - art as a mirror, except there is no reflection to behold; the emptiness of a particular piece is meant to mimic the emptiness of culture or art at large.

I'm not sure what the solution is, and I don't know enough about art history to know whether or not past generations experienced this same sort of artistic myopia. My guess is a number of them have, albeit to varying degrees.

I'm not sure how we can create meaningful art that edifies - must we return to God, or at least return to the sacramental nature of ritual and worship and tradition? Must capitalism be done away with? Is unreality characteristic of only capitalism? I'm not sure. As for myself, I mostly enjoy more classical or traditional forms of art - I suppose I'm very conservative that way, and my own prose is more rooted in modernism and classicism to some degree, maybe neoclassical. I hate experimental prose, and I hate literature that does away with tradition and abstracts itself to be difficult for its own sake.

Maybe we must do away with abstraction and return to reality in compensation for the indescribable degree of abstraction we've suffered not only in the realm of art, but in society and in culture and politics. Maybe it should be our own personal sort of struggle to return to tradition to some moderate degree, and to defy unnecessary abstraction since abstraction seems to have infiltrated every aspect of our lives.

[Anonymous No.11250613]

>>11250187
I think you've missed the point of what Duchamp was trying to prove with his work.

[Anonymous No.11250623]

>>11250378
2deep

[Anonymous No.11250627]

>>11250170
Please attempt to have some kind of understanding of those terms before posting on a literature board

[Anonymous No.11250633]

>>11250609
I'm not the one you asked about Duchamp, t.b.h, I'm just being a bit of a pedantic asshole because Duchamp did stuff other than the urinal. He made a bunch of various readymades, installations and (figurative) paintings, and it's kind of annoying to see him reduced to one single meme work.

[Anonymous No.11250636]

posting some contemporary sculpture that I like

[Anonymous No.11250639]

>>11250611
>I'm not sure how we can create meaningful art that edifies
But that's not the purpose of art. Art doesn't have any useful purpose and it's in this void of uselessness when confronted with art that we self-reflect and experience ourself and our world.

[Anonymous No.11250640]

>>11250636

[Anonymous No.11250642]

>>11250639
t. small souled bugman

[Anonymous No.11250646]

>>11250633
>it's kind of annoying to see him reduced to one single meme work.
agree

[Anonymous No.11250652]

>>11250640

[Anonymous No.11250656]

>>11250633
>it's kind of annoying to see him reduced to one single meme work.
he knew exactly what he was doing when he produced that fucking urinal, i have no sympathy

[Anonymous No.11250660]

>>11250652

[Anonymous No.11250666]

>>11250642
Tell me what's the purpose of this anon. No, I'm not implying that it doesn't have one.

[Anonymous No.11250667]

>people projecting all this shit onto squiggles.

what if art is just squiggles that look nice (or not)?

[Anonymous No.11250674]

>>11250642
So what's the exact purpose of art then?

[Anonymous No.11250683]

>>11250640
>>11250652
>>11250660
>>11250652
nice kitsch plebbo

[Anonymous No.11250687]

>>11250666
Unless it's blatantly spelled out or the artist details it later, it is often impossible to accurately determine the purpose of art, especially in visual art or music.. you would have to ask Kadinsky himself but I think you're missing the point of visual abstraction a bit

[Anonymous No.11250692]

>>11250666
Shiet my mom has that in one of her bathrooms. I thought it was absolute nonsense when I was like 5. The yellow block looks like an emergency escape door.

[Anonymous No.11250694]

>>11250194
Show me one Pollock piece that displays joy, woe, agony, horror or humor. Polock's work is shit because it means nothing.

[Anonymous No.11250696]

>>11250687
>ask Kadinsky himself
Ffs it's you and not the artist who makes the decision. The artists opinion doesn't mean shit after he finishes his work.

[Anonymous No.11250699]

>>11250696
>it's you and not the artist who makes the decision
how to spot the plebiest of plebs

[Anonymous No.11250705]

>>11250696
Then you're implying, accidentally or not, that no art has a specific purpose. If you phrase it that way, then yes I could apply any "purpose" I like to the drawing. What about "I think it looks nice, so therefore the purpose is for me to enjoy the aesthetics"?

[Anonymous No.11250716]

>>11250692
>I thought it was absolute nonsense when I was like 5
you haven't delevoped much have you
>>11250687
>you would have to ask Kadinsky
if only the aforementioned painer wrote a book or two explaining what he wanted to with his art...

[Anonymous No.11250717]

>>11250694
pollock's stuff at least looks cool. It's quite striking in person. There are much more suitable objects of scorn than him

[Anonymous No.11250723]

>>11250705
That's the only thing art can give you - aesthetic experiences. Through them, as I said above, you self-reflect and experience yourself in this world.

[Anonymous No.11250730]

>>11250694
>joy, woe, agony, horror or humor
http://www.denisdutton.com/bell.htm

[Anonymous No.11250735]

>>11250730
>http://www.denisdutton.com/bell.htm
>It is improbable that more nonsense has been written about aesthetics than about anything else: the literature of the subject is not large enough for that. It is certain, however, that about no subject with which I am acquainted has so little been said that is at all to the purpose. The explanation is discoverable.

[Anonymous No.11250736]

These threads never settle anything.

[Anonymous No.11250757]

>>11250378
It's a mischaracterisation. People have a problem with a narrowly defined 'contemporary art' that for some reason includes artists who died 70 years ago.

[Anonymous No.11250758]

>>11250736
Because art itself always questions itself otherwise it wouldn't be art.

[Anonymous No.11250766]

>>11250730
>In each, lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir our aesthetic emotions
BRAVO BELL

[Anonymous No.11250768]

>>11250735
I mean, he isn't wrong

[Anonymous No.11250785]

>>11250683
was about to post this, thanks

[Anonymous No.11250787]

Ok /lit/, a little test: what can be said about this painting?

[Anonymous No.11250790]

>>11250667
You'd have to determine why, then you're back in the 18th century again

[Anonymous No.11250792]

>>11250683
wrong

[Anonymous No.11250801]

>>11250787
It is dark, muddy and gloomy but shows nothing much more than that. It looks more like a technical still-life practice of skills than anything designed to provoke emotions.

[Anonymous No.11250808]

>>11250792
I'm sorry, but he is correct
those sculptures look like they're made by a mental midget with a false sense of grandeur for other mental midgets who don't know any better

[Anonymous No.11250817]

I like the russian avant garde a lot. Kandinsky and the other Bauhaus guys were cool too. White on White is what's up.

[Anonymous No.11250819]

>>11250801
bait or embarrassing

[Anonymous No.11250822]

>>11250694
The more art distances itself from an economy of 'meaning' the better. Pollock's work is exactly what it is. If it had any 'meaning' it would fall into the same critical orgy that mystifies all other experience of art. If you want to experience a wide range of emotions, get yourself a girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.11250831]

>>11250170
Because it breaks your brittle brain

>>11250378
They don't know anything about art and don't care to learn, and think this makes them contrarian somehow

[Anonymous No.11250834]

>>11250736
Has arguing with a post modern ever settled anything?

[Anonymous No.11250835]

>>11250822
>The more art distances itself from an economy of 'meaning' the better.
i had a physical reaction to this sentence, a sort of abdominal lurch

also art is far superior to having a fucking gf come on now.

the only way your post could be worse was if you made a comment on art being inherently political

[Anonymous No.11250836]

>>11250817
looks good

for a bathroom wall tile

[Anonymous No.11250844]

>>11250835
a fulfilling romantic life offers much more than any art gallery could anon

[Anonymous No.11250850]

>>11250836
DO YOU LIKE YOUR WALL TILES FUCKING TILTED?

[Anonymous No.11250856]

>>11250844
a fulfilling romantic life is like being a drug addict and it turns your own art to garbage. Every single time i have had an intense romantic relationship it has been a massive mistake

[Anonymous No.11250857]

>>11250835
Did you have a point?

[Anonymous No.11250860]

>>11250835
this art is inherently political

[Anonymous No.11250861]

>>11250808
>immediate reference to the supposed audience instead of actual critique of the work
the fastest way to spot a pseud

[Anonymous No.11250862]

>>11250857
there were 3 separate points, one for each sentence

[Anonymous No.11250863]

>>11250850
why not? I was thinking more along the lines of each tile having a different size and tilt shape on it though

[Anonymous No.11250868]

>>11250861
>the fastest way to spot a pseud

I always thought that the fastest way to spot a pseud was to look at who uses that word

[Anonymous No.11250876]

>>11250863
okay that actually sounds pretty nice. Some subtle off-whites would look cool too.

[Anonymous No.11250878]

>>11250860
but the political aspect of the painting is not what makes it art.

[Anonymous No.11250880]

>>11250862
You made a point of demonstrating how much of a brainlet you are.

Do you want to talk about art or do you want to talk about talking about art?

[Anonymous No.11250881]

>>11250860
нeт

[Anonymous No.11250883]

>>11250878
checkmate, the living.

[Anonymous No.11250885]

>>11250881
mmh daddy. Lissitzky's architecture is the pinnacle of his art. Proun makes me cum

[Anonymous No.11250886]

>>11250868
did that sound like a good rebuttal in your head

[Anonymous No.11250889]

>>11250886
excuse me, a rebuttal to what exactly?

[Anonymous No.11250893]

>>11250889
STOP saying the word butt

[Anonymous No.11250899]

>>11250860
Imagine this is unearthed 10,000 years from now. How are humans then supposed to derive anything political from this without the context being known to them? This art is only inherently political in the sense that the artist knew he was making it for political purposes at the time, even though he heavily infuses his futurist and constructivist style (which often looked beyond politics to much grander ideals of high modernism, i.e. the reorganization of life by artistic means). We derive political meaning from it because we are aware of the context. If you were to post this in gallery in many people outside of Russia would have no idea what it's about except for the caption accompanying it. The aesthetic of the work transcends any meaning we project onto it (including the artist's original intent).

[Anonymous No.11250902]

>>11250889
nothing anon, nothing. don't worry about it.

[Anonymous No.11250905]

>>11250899
it has words in it that explain its context dude

[Anonymous No.11250912]

>>11250899
The aesthetic of the work, in its forms used, is indicative of its political purpose.

[Anonymous No.11250925]

>>11250905
red wedge beat whites
That'll tell archeologoists a lot about the history of the october revolution and its aftermath.

[Anonymous No.11250928]

>>11250905
>>11250912
it's almost like you didn't read my post

[Anonymous No.11250930]

>>11250912
is it really though. I can see how the emotional or psychological or whatever effects can be associated with political content but how is the form actually political

[Anonymous No.11250949]

>>11250930
The red wedge--the communist vanguard party-- pops the bubble that the capitalist whites have been living in. Filling their bubble with white--the reality of russia's situation. Every form is representative of a party, group, or event during the revolution.

[Anonymous No.11250955]

>doesn't like Frank Stella
pleb

[Anonymous No.11250962]

>>11250949
i get that but you cant actually extract that from the painting, you have to go in with the knowledge already in your mind

[Anonymous No.11250963]

>>11250170
((()))

[Anonymous No.11250969]

>>11250962
But if you can read the russian text it becomes clear

[Anonymous No.11250970]

>>11250949
I'm not disputing that. I said:
>We derive political meaning from it because we are aware of the context.

[Anonymous No.11250972]

>>11250949
This painting is loaded with symbols that made sense to the dutch back in the days. Are you getting anything from it?

[Anonymous No.11250978]

>>11250969
can't tell if you're retarded or this is bait

[Anonymous No.11250980]

>>11250972
why are they mocking me

[Anonymous No.11250983]

>>11250980
they know your secret

[Anonymous No.11250987]

>>11250187
>simplicity is decadence
ah yes, I too miss the times when artists depicted extravagant court scenes filled with endless riches and painted with literal gold. these new abstract guys who just use one color are nothing but decadent pleasure-seekers

[Anonymous No.11250995]

>>11250611
the problem is now people focus on the message over the medium.
e.g. fucking shit photos of dick cut off prostitutes in horrible conditions vs. a skilled photograph by a proffesional

[Anonymous No.11250996]

>>11250878
it's impossible to separate the two

[Anonymous No.11251008]

>>11250996
please explain

[Anonymous No.11251014]

>>11250696
>The artists opinion doesn't mean shit after he finishes his work.
hurr durr I think the audience is more important than the artist.
No.

[Anonymous No.11251016]

>>11250995
you are most likely a fat Redditor in his early twenties with a MAGA hat and a pepe t-shirt; if not, you are a fucking hipster with meme hair. You do not even enjoy your supposed "skilled" artwork for the actual artistic value in them, but in order to suck off yourself in a arbitrary point measured value of greatness and "PURE VIRTUE AND STRENGTH". You do not understand art, you do not understand art you like, the idea that art isn't to show your greatness but to express your ideas and emotions seems completely alien to you - you are an anti intellectual idiot. And no, I do not think that a bunch of tampons constitutes as great art because it fails to express it in an original or affecting/complex way.

[Anonymous No.11251019]

>>11251008
if the political event didn't occur, it would lose all meaning and cease to be art

[Anonymous No.11251021]

>>11251014
Why not? What authority does the artist have to decide how I perceive things?

[Anonymous No.11251026]

>>11250899
In 10,000 years maybe the humans that unearth it don't think of it as 'art'. A painting isn't inherently art, which depends on a certain context as much as, and sometimes in tandem with, one of politics. If I unearth this in 10,000 years I might not give it any greater thought than a rare candy bar wrapper unearthed two days prior, which seems, formally, more appealing to my senses than an intentionally developed and historically determined 'aesthetic'.

[Anonymous No.11251028]

>>11251026
are you saying the humans of 12000BC will be plebs

[Anonymous No.11251030]

>>11251026
Sure, art can end. Hegel already talked about that.

[Anonymous No.11251037]

>>11251019
if the political event didn't occur, the picture wouldn't exist in the first place. but even if i knew nothing about the historical background, i could still get something out of it through the colors and shapes, etc.

[Anonymous No.11251039]

>>11251026
It doesn't matter what they consider art I'm speaking of art in the postmodern sense which is pretty much anything created by humans including consumer objects and advertising. I get that art with capital A is constructed but for the sake of art criticism it is best to work with this broad definition. Whoever unearths it in 10,000 years will consider it an aesthetic object no matter what, and they will or won't ascribe meaning to it that will likely have nothing to do with the context of its creation.

[Anonymous No.11251042]

>>11250194
le /pol/ boogeyman

[Anonymous No.11251046]

>>11251042
I hate the /pol/ boogeyman meme too but that is /pol/-tier thinking

[Anonymous No.11251047]

>>11250787
its cropped you absolute imbecile

[Anonymous No.11251079]

>>11251021
the artist has an authority on the purpose, not the perception

[Anonymous No.11251102]

>>11251014
>>11251021
>>11251079

this is just embarrassing

[Anonymous No.11251106]

>>11251016
I'm not the dude you're replying to. I'm the guy he was replying to: >>11250611

I'm not taking the bait cast by your totally baseless characterizing of the dude you're responding to, but I wanna ask you a question, and I don't mean this question as a challenge, or like I'm participating in some argument. I just think your post brings up an interesting question.

I also don't think bloody tampons as some commentary on femininity or whatever is good art, but your comment about it failing to express the message in an original or affecting/complex way makes me wonder if that's not an unfair criteria in our generation, and I say this as someone who doesn't know to which way he leans on this issue.

We're arriving on the lighted stage of history centuries after art has had time to develop and abstract itself to all sorts of absurd degrees. We've seen countless artistic and conceptual innovations. This makes me wonder if it is possible to present any message in an artistic way that is original, and, if there cannot be any true originality in art, I would argue that the familiarity or the derivative aspect of a piece of unoriginal art (unoriginal because it has no choice) then robs the piece of its complexity or its power to affect.

This isn't my belief because I'm still working through this question myself, but I wonder if art these days can only be a continuance of the cultural dialogue began in earlier generations; that we cannot spin our own threads but can only pick up the loose threads left by previous generations, and weave them into the existing patchwork, not able to produce our own independent network of reference/relevance. For example, unless an author wants to get ridiculously abstract and eschew grammar and syntax and the like altogether to make an EXPERIMENTAL! mess of a book, any author's book these days are going to be an amalgam of ideas that have preceded him. Therefore we can only be the arbiters of the past, and it cannot be the ideas themselves that are original or unique, but the way in which each constituent idea or them is packaged. We can only try and take existing trends and ideas, then, and try to package and sort them as prettily as we can, since the ideas contained within are all tired and trite by now.

What do you think?

[Anonymous No.11251108]

>>11250787
They're heavily used boots, something a working man would own. There's nothing in the background to narrow down who owns them or where they're used, they could be used by anyone. They're not meant to be a luxury item. The boots, and the painting as a whole, are just a drab brown, without embellishments to make it flashy or vibrant. It doesn't matter if they get beat up or covered in filth. The only thing that matters is that they perform on the job, even if the owner subjects them to harsh conditions, day after day after day... until they're finally worn out and falling apart, at which point they're thrown away. It's the sort of style where you're meant to notice the paint and the brushstrokes. The labor and raw materials needed to create the finished product are not hidden away.

Contrast this with the traditional still life. They usually depicted some sort of abundance or luxury. Visible paint or brushstrokes were the sign of an inferior painting. They depicted the world of the wealthy for the eyes of the wealthy. Will this painting be displayed alongside them? How much will it cost, compared to the others?

[Anonymous No.11251109]

>>11251039
They'll consider it an aesthetic object removed from its 'originating' context but if it shifts from one interpretive scheme to another it is likely it could also be interpreted as political. If people are political, they would attempt to understand its context through what they themselves know or understand or whatever, which would include the political. Art and politics are common to humanity, and some may suggest that politics is not even exclusive to humanity amongst the rest of the animal kingdom. At what point is art contextually independent from politics, if it is even possible?

[Anonymous No.11251113]

>>11251102
not as embarassing as your unthinking academia fellatio

[Anonymous No.11251115]

>>11251079
The artist has the right to express himself in any way he sees fit, ok. And then? What happens next?
>>11251102 nice pic, but its nonsense

[Anonymous No.11251122]

>>11251113
oh I forgot we were playing revolutionary genius thinkers here, far beyond the uninspired contemporary academia

umm... art as no meaning! it's all a sham!

[Anonymous No.11251125]

>>11250987
the simplicity of modern art is defensive and mirrors the void of meaning felt by people living in the age of decadence.
Also see people like whatshisface who made a skull out of diamonds and other bullshit - damien hirst

[Anonymous No.11251126]

>>11251122
or- get this m8, many different people have come up with theories of literary criicism and the straitjacketed dogma of modern academia doesn't do them justice

[Anonymous No.11251135]

>>11251028
>using the word pleb when you are the pleb.

>>11250995
>>11250611
You are both wrong.
This art exists but is not known about. There are artists that value their craft and skill in a medium and aim to create interesting things.
There are also those making rubbish within a medium they do not care about.

Why don't you all actually look for art you like? If you say hurr durr nothing is good then you should just leave.
If you don't find anything you like (doubtful) then make it.

But you won't because like others have said, you don't really care for art apart from muh traditionalism.

[Anonymous No.11251141]

>>11251102
nice highschool memes, fresh from reddit I assume?

[Anonymous No.11251148]

modern and postmodern art is anything but simple, you bumbling retard. quite the contrary, it's the most caustically elitist, self-contained and insular art there exists

[Anonymous No.11251157]

>>11250987
modern and postmodern art is anything but simple, you bumbling retard. quite the contrary, it's the most caustically elitist, self-contained and insular art there exists

[Anonymous No.11251163]

>140 posts into thread
>still nobody realized OP is bait

based /lit/izens

[Anonymous No.11251164]

Say something about this piece, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11251167]

KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


UNDERTALE IS JEWISH KIKE PROPAGANDA


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


SARGON IS A FAT KIKE


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES

[Anonymous No.11251170]

>>11251125
>the simplicity of modern art is defensive and mirrors the void of meaning felt by people living in the age of decadence
Maybe people just appreciate bare and basic colors and shapes

>>11251157
quite frankly a lot of early post-modern art is aimed at being as simple as possible, pic related

[Anonymous No.11251173]

>>11251157
Theoretically speaking, it's quite simple. Not that I want to attack anyone, but it certainly doesn't have the renaissance preouccppation with autistic spacial geometry. But I guess you were using "not simple" as in "not easy to aestethically understand"

[Anonymous No.11251174]

>>11251170
they dont though, modern and pomo art is hugely unpopular

[Anonymous No.11251176]

>>11251167
who is chara?

[Anonymous No.11251177]

>>11251163
People know, they just don't care

[Anonymous No.11251181]

>>11251135
I understand there are those that value their craft and work to create interesting things, and I definitely think that's a flaw in the reasoning with everyone who says modern art is garbage, but obviously I think people like you should accommodate for the possibility that they don't mean 100% of modern art because obviously everyone doesn't know every artist working these days, and I think every critic would acknowledge that.

With that said, I think most if not all of us DO seek out good contemporary art we find interesting. Please don't construct your argument in a way that assumes we have a comprehensive knowledge of every artist at work these days. It's a process of discovery. Are you not still discovering new musical artists making music in your favorite genre?
But, to that point, the issue arises from a general observation of modern art's seeming vapidity.
And I'm not trying to come across like I think I'm right. I'm asking the same questions of myself I'm asking of other people here because I know I'm no official on art or art history. These are questions I'm working through, and we're all working through as well because there will always be more for us to know, or there will always be circumstances as we go through life that alter our beliefs and opinions.

[Anonymous No.11251184]

>>11250178
>tfw studying STEM is always just a string of definitions

[Anonymous No.11251186]

>>11250683
there's literally nothing wrong with kitsch tho

[Anonymous No.11251188]

>>11251181
...and obviously the fact that art is so subjective, and the way we experience everything in life is subjective, this complicates issues like this to an absolutely ridiculous degree.

[Anonymous No.11251189]

>>11250170

>i don't understand art

we get it, brainlet

[Anonymous No.11251198]

>be 15 yo white trash kid
>google "modern art"
>see a bunch of weird shapes and deformed ladies
>wtf this is all trash
>go on /lit/ and make a thread about it
>scratch my unwashed penis and smell my fingers
The story of OP

[Anonymous No.11251206]

>>11250787
Go to bed, Martin

[Anonymous No.11251219]

KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


UNDERTALE IS JEWISH KIKE PROPAGANDA


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


SARGON IS A FAT KIKE


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES

[Anonymous No.11251221]

>>11251174
>modern and pomo art is hugely unpopular
Not sure where you're getting that impression from. The most popular visual artists today tend fit under the categories of Modernism or Postmodernism
>Van Gogh
>Picasso
>Matisse
>Monet
>Warhol
>Basquiat
>Hopper
>Pollack
>Cezane
>Dali
>Klee
>Duchamp
>Mondrian
>Haring
>Rothko
>Kahlo
>Chagall
>Kandinsky
>Schiele
>Lichtenstein
>Magritte
>Miro
>Rivera
>Gauguin

[Anonymous No.11251225]

>>11251206

[Anonymous No.11251227]

>>11250899
this

[Anonymous No.11251231]

>>11251221
the public don't even like Picasso let alone a bunch of the others on that list. They like Caravaggio and Bernini.

I will give you van Gogh and Monet, who for whatever reason are genuinely popular

[Anonymous No.11251242]

>>11251231
>the public don't even like Picasso let alone a bunch of the others on that list.
as if not any exhibition with these artists would be packed.

[Anonymous No.11251250]

>>11251231
Go outside dude, modernist art is hugely popular. You'd really have to be crazy to think otherwise. Tours of these artists' works are inevitably big events.

[Anonymous No.11251270]

>>11251221
post-impressionism is pre-modern

most popular visual artists precede the break from tradition, your list is bollocks

[Anonymous No.11251278]

I'll say just one thing - if you don't even occasionally follow the current artistic production you're probably spouting bullshit about the state of art. It's very complicated and that's how you end up with people calling it both hyper-insular and hyper-populistic, hyper-complex and hyper-simple. You see a few random examples of it and then draw far-reaching conclusions, and the conclusions make no sense and in the end nearly everyone is just talking past each other. Consequently these discussions never get us anywhere.

>>11251231
Picasso is the most meme artist ever, after Leonardo. People flock to his exhibitions and probably have no idea who Bernini was.

>>11251198
Pro tip: kys

[Anonymous No.11251292]

>>11251242
>>11251250
>>11251278
people get genuinely angry at Picasso's cubist stuff, i am not making this up. I think you guys might be slightly out of touch with the general public

any Bernini statue will provoke cries of awe from the crowd, the Guernica causes confusion and people pretending they like it.

[Anonymous No.11251297]

>>11250170
because verthing is relative. what you consider garbage is art for many people

[Anonymous No.11251300]

>>11251270
Impressionism is the first movement to fit under modernism as an artstic time period. Take an art history class dickhead.

>most popular visual artists precede the break from tradition
Yeah, bullshit. With the exception of the great renaissance painters, el greco, and the 17th century Dutch, the public is far more aquainted with Modernism. You're an idiot and out of touch with most people's tastes.

>>11251278
>if you don't even occasionally follow the current artistic production you're probably spouting bullshit about the state of art. It's very complicated and that's how you end up with people calling it both hyper-insular and hyper-populistic, hyper-complex and hyper-simple
This

>>11251292
>people get genuinely angry at Picasso's cubist stuff, i am not making this up
And yet Guernica, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, and The Old Guitarists are some of the most recognizable pieces of art in the world and whose posters are plastered all over college dorm rooms, coffee shops, and are parodied in obnoxious tote bags. Hardly any average joe will know who Benini is by name.

[Anonymous No.11251308]

>>11251300
yeah but they have no fucking clue who Picasso is, i bet your average prole thinks he's contemporary with Michaelangelo

[Anonymous No.11251317]

>>11251308
>Have no clue who Picasso is
The dude's referenced in like Kanye and Jay Z songs. You're out of your mind

[Anonymous No.11251322]

>>11251300
Impressionism is also pre-modern, or a transition period between late romanticism and early modernity. Some impressionists/post-impressionists do present very clear attributes of would later be called modern art, however that seldom happened before the twentieth century

[Anonymous No.11251354]

>>11251322
The impressionists are the first to delve fully into abstraction, breaking away from an idealized or perfectly replicated reality that existed external to the human condition. The modernist turn is in the centering of subjective perception as the focus of art, thus the very term "impression" in the first place. It starkly broke away from traditional art and was mocked and harshly criticized in it's own time for doing so. It's modern dude.

[Anonymous No.11251382]

>>11251292
A few years ago there was a big exhibition of Picasso's works in my city and everyone and their mother went there. He's massively popular. Yes, a large number of people hate him too, but every popular musician also has a ton of haters and they're still, you know, popular.

[Anonymous No.11251395]

>>11250170
>modern
>postmodern

[Anonymous No.11251482]

>>11251354
>The modernist turn is in the centering of subjective perception as the focus of art

This would qualify Romanticism as modern, but I don't think that is entirely wrong anyway. By convention the capitalised 'Modern Art' is the exclusive kind with the closest proximity to the Cezanne-Picasso-Pollock sequence as according to Greenberg. To my understanding though, modern art is essentially a war over the taste of the public galvanised by the republican (and bourgeois) Enlightenment, especially when it came to defining human consciousness, understanding, subjectivity, education, and the rest, through Locke, Rousseau, etc. Modern art is the adaptation of onto-theology from a religious to a secular society, hence all the hoo-ha about immediacy, expression, work-as-itself, and the rest.

[Anonymous No.11251507]

>>11251482
Then we essentially agree. Walter Benjamin certainly considered some Romantics (though more explicitly its poets) as quintessentially capital-M-Modern. One could probably go as far as to say that the birth of the novel as a identifiable medium is the true beginning of modernism in art.

[Anonymous No.11251579]

>>11250170
Same reason a dog can't appreciate the moon landing. Though unlike a dog you probably still have some hope once you start developing some original thought.

[Anonymous No.11251594]

>>11250170
Because art reflects the era it exists in.

[Anonymous No.11251596]

>>11250170
frank stella is a lot of things but postmodern ain't one of them

[Anonymous No.11251599]

>>11251596
>minimalism
>not postmodern

[Anonymous No.11251602]

>>11251270
Baudelaire was talking about the modern much earlier

[Anonymous No.11251629]

KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


UNDERTALE IS JEWISH KIKE PROPAGANDA


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


SARGON IS A FAT KIKE


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES


CHARA DID NOTHING WRONG


KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES KILL NIGGERS KILL KIKES

[Anonymous No.11251660]

>>11251629
Is this art?

[Anonymous No.11251672]

>abstract expressionism is a contemporary art movement
>postmodernism is abstract expressionism
>minimalism is postmodernism
>abstract expressionism is minimalism

the brainletism in these threads is contagious, i dont like spending too much time in them. i ctrl+f'd 'laundering' and didnt turn any results so at least we havent opened that can of worms yet

[Anonymous No.11251707]

>>11251672
>Postmodernism is a historical art period the same way The Renaissance, Baroque, and Classical are
>Every period contains several movements that may vary radically from one another
>Periods are useful for historically orienting certain pieces and highlighting general overarching trends between these movements

I just don't get why people are so anal about the basic divisions. They're descriptive and historical, not fatal qualifiers.

[Anonymous No.11251730]

>>11251707
i am less bothered about the categorization as i am the idea that abstract expressionism is 'modern art.' abstract expressionism died nearly 50 years ago

[Anonymous No.11251753]

>>11251730
to be fair it made a resurgence in the 80s and earlier this decade

[Anonymous No.11251763]

>>11251672

This is correct, and at the same time not. You also left out the single most glaring error of them all, which was when the OP confused and conflated modernism and postmodernism themselves.

Before I proceed any further I would like to finish opening your can of worms (you got it started, your fault) for the benefit of the thread: there is a commonly held—and not at all unreasonable—opinion that the modern art market is a money laundering racket whereby multi-millionaires and the (((art market))) confer outsized value on works of modern art, which trade hands and rapidly appreciate, providing a great ROI. Actually I don't know how it's supposed to be money laundering as-such (anonymous buyers maybe but sooner or later if your tax info is on the up-and-up then you have to disclose data, or if not then maybe that's where the laundering angle comes in), but it's very clear that once a hot artist is dead, their works do appreciate rapidly. If I personally had a portfolio of several million to throw around, I'd get a significant chunk of it into art just by the obviousness of the appreciation itself. Would be nice to have a Motherwell print or three around the house.

Now to terms. You are correct in the sense that multiple isms have their traditional milleus and associated people, time periods, etc, and that in one sense, a person not knowing the differences among the schools shows that they don't know what they're talking about But words like minimalism have more general connotations apart from their art world contexts. Tell the average person that a standard Rothko, or even the appropriate Still, is "not minimalist" and they will /correctly/ dismiss the distinct point that you're trying to make. It's important to remember that these phrases are often arbitrarily put by the critics, and not the artists themselves, who often correctly hate such categorizations.

[Anonymous No.11251774]

>>11250170
we had this thread last week, no?

[Anonymous No.11251784]

>>11250170
there is a lot of amazing art that was only possible because of ignoring rules or inventing new rules. staunch traditionalism is probably just as bad as staunch postmodernism.

[Anonymous No.11251788]

>>11251157
literally untrue you are dumb

[Anonymous No.11251789]

>>11251774

We have this thread at least three times a day, dude

[Anonymous No.11251790]

>>11251730

Now you yourself seem to be getting confused as to terms. Abstract expressionism is not only modern art, but moreover /epitomizes/ modern art for its detractors, who admittedly don't know the terminology. But it's temporally of a piece with (the end of) modernity as a cultural attitude, as opposed to post-modernism with its skepticisms and eclecticisms (even if one's eyes start rolling at those words, that's what the content of postmodernism actually is across disciplines, Lyotard and architecture respectively in this case).

Since I'm involving myself in a pissing match, I assert on the contary that the category "modern art" properly includes AbEx as a subset, albeit toward the former's end. We are still making traditional paintings ffs, a lone artist strikes out in the city, and makes a statement. Pretty quaint (because unironic), hence still-modern, notions.

The basic divide that I find useful (modern/postmodern) is from the 50s going into the 60s. Cultural shift, obvious pop-cultural points of reference, etc.

[Anonymous No.11251792]

>>11251672
The only arguable one is that minimalism is postmodern which comes down to how you define the postmodern in art. Seriality, (open) systems, anti-expressivism, post-object art, Conceptualism, process/viewer-as-participant, non-traditional materials i.e. the end of painting, institutional criticism all lean towards the more postmodern.

[Anonymous No.11251815]

>>11250176
today I learn /litfags/ are mathematician

[Anonymous No.11251820]

>>11250241
but you cannot sell this on 60k bucks

[Anonymous No.11251828]

>>11251790
i agree with pretty much everything in your post, its modern in the sense of modernism or modernity, hence the scare quotes around 'modern art' in my original post. OP and most others clearly use the term 'modern art' to mean 'contemporary art'

>>11251763
>conflated modernism and postmodernism

again, semantic mistake OP and many plebs make where they use 'modern art' to mean 'contemporary art.' the layperson uses 'modern' to mean the present era or moment, ie 'modern romance' or 'modern times.' with respect to your point about the art market, you described a speculative bubble, which you recognized yourself is not money laundering. the rest of your post i dont find disagreeable at all. from the writing style and your ideas it seems like youre the person i replied to just earlier too.

>>11251792
fair enough. i wasnt committed to that one desu, i just wanted to greentext

[Anonymous No.11251847]

>>11251730
I can answer this question. abstract expressionism revived in this decade, giving a big impact on market.

[Anonymous No.11251878]

>>11250170
Because it's not connected to anything meaningful.

[Anonymous No.11251920]

>>11251579
You told him

[Anonymous No.11251945]

>>11250170
>How come modern art is a bunch of postmodern garbage?
>Modern
>Postmodern

To answer your question, it's because of theories of art like formalism eating itself until now we have institutional theory of art.

[Anonymous No.11252036]

>>11250611
This is only true if you don’t know anything about art history. Sure, there’s some real trash that gets big, but by and large the significant contemporary and modern/postmodern artists can be traced back to older traditions and movements.

[Anonymous No.11252172]

THE WORD YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS 'CONTEMPORARY'
'HOW COME CONTEMPORARY ART IS A BUNCH OF POSTMODERN GARBAGE?'
ANSWER: LOADED QUESTION; EAT SHIT, FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.11252251]

>>11250176
>>11251815
Brainlets

[Anonymous No.11253524]

>>11252251
When did this brainlet meme start to pick up?

[Anonymous No.11253753]

>>11250194
I like a lot of postmodern art but dislike Pollock

[Anonymous No.11253765]

>>11250187
For thousands of years, conservatives have been saying that society will soon collapse because of decadence, but this time they prediction will definitely turn out to be true!

[Anonymous No.11253775]

>>11253753
Pollack isn't even postmodern art, he's modernist

[Anonymous No.11253886]

>>11251753
>>11251847
can you tell me the names of some new abstract expressionist painters that have risen to prominence? or contemporary art galleries that have featured new abstract expressionist work this decade, without using wikipedia or google?

[Anonymous No.11253887]

>>11251599
>Frank Stella is a minimalist

Stella is a hard edge abstractionist, and I think his work fits in the modernist tradition better since it doesn’t deal with post-structuralism, post-coloniality, appropriation, technology, etc.

[Anonymous No.11253943]

>>11250176

define define

[Anonymous No.11254088]

>>11250176
>dude ruff doens't exist
<HURR IMPEACH TRUMP HE LIES

Why are libs so stupid

[Anonymous No.11254149]

nobody in this thread knows something interesting about art. everyone just posts platitudes.

[Anonymous No.11254172]

>>11254149
post modernists say you cant kno nuffin so what the fuck do you expect for people to discuss when they hear this lie repeated?

[Anonymous No.11254288]

>>11254172
thats not just post modernists. this has been a bedrock of philosophy since hume

[Anonymous No.11254479]

>>11250204
please define killing and what constitutes the properties of the action - can you kill someone? can a nonliving thing kill? can you kill yourself? can concepts kill?
Please define what "you" is and what the difference it has when it's possessive especially when it relates to a self (is there a you and a self?)
and please define what a self is.

[Anonymous No.11254487]

>>11254172
nothing to do with art you fedoratipper

[Anonymous No.11254502]

It became too self-referential, it became a necessity for artists not only to make art but also to "comment" on art as a medium. This created a vicious cycle where the general public, even an informed one, feels no connection to art pieces and artists, simply because they (justifiably) do not know the codes and visual elements of the pieces.

[Anonymous No.11254509]

>>11250176
>Asking you to define the things your talking, instead of having a counter argument

Also, why pretentious cunts always do this?

[Anonymous No.11254520]

>>11250176
define how
define come
define modern
define art
define is
define a
define bunch
define of
define postmodern
define garbage
I am smart enough, guys?

[Anonymous No.11254528]

>>11250194
Nigga i like Pollock, but you are a pretentious asshole

[Anonymous No.11254537]

>>11254509
While this post is clearly a joke, it never hurts to make sure that you're talking about the same thing.

[Anonymous No.11254539]

>>11250987

>imagine being this brainlet

[Anonymous No.11254562]

>>11254537

>i-it's a joke, guys, i swear

[Anonymous No.11254574]

Post modernists will defend this

[Anonymous No.11254576]

>>11254574
And why not?

[Anonymous No.11254578]

>>11254576
It’s a bunch of scribbles

[Anonymous No.11254588]

>>11254578
If it wouldn't mean anything to you, you'd just ignore it. But it obviously got an reaction out of you, meaning you had an aesthetic experience with it. That's what makes it art.

[Anonymous No.11254594]

>>11251186
>this fucking post

I hate this place so much

[Anonymous No.11254601]

>>11254588

Oh god, being this fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.11254603]

>>11254574

looks like my floor after I had wild gay butt sex.

[Anonymous No.11254606]

>>11254601
I'm genuinely curious what you are expecting to get out of art. Care to explain?

[Anonymous No.11254639]

>>11254574
But that's modernist

[Anonymous No.11254644]

>>11254588
Why do scribbles belong in a museum

[Anonymous No.11254653]

So beautiful and deep...

[Anonymous No.11254664]

>>11254588
If I took a dump and pressed it between 2 panes of glass and put it up into a museum it would elicit a reaction from you. Does that make my turd art?

[Anonymous No.11254667]

>>11254653
It is when you look at the real thing, which is considerably larger than this picture,

[Anonymous No.11254672]

>>11254667
Oh wow so it’s a BIG canvas with scribbles..that changes everything

[Anonymous No.11254678]

>>11254574
Beautyfags will defend this

[Anonymous No.11254682]

>Abloo bloo bloo muh Entartete Kunst
>Abloo bloo bloo postmodernism
>Abloo bloo bloo what is art
Friendly reminder to not talk about visual art, let alone Art with the capital a, until you've read at the very least:

The Story of Art by F.H. Gombrich
Der Blaue Reiter AND Point and Line to Plane by Kandinskj
Old Masters by T. Bernhard
A manual on design like Art is Work by M. Glaser or better yet, The History of Design by Renato Fusco
The Art of Colour by Johannes Itten

[Anonymous No.11254683]

>>11254678

I would not defend this. I would fuck this.

[Anonymous No.11254692]

>>11254682
>no "Concerning the spiritual in Art"
hello crabbit

[Anonymous No.11254696]

>>11254682
so a bunch of ideologues writing some rethorical defenses of sub-standard art just to keep money coming in their direction while they pretend to be artists/critics/"curators"/whatever. sounds like a non-biased source.

[Anonymous No.11254698]

>>11250170

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on 'garbage' and assume you're just asking why postmodernisn seems to be the zeitgeist.

I think it's because it mirrors our experience. Look at most traditional art: people saw some beauty in their environment (be in God or nature or their lover or whatever) and deemed it so beautiful they needed to capture (which artists still do by the way. You're not consuming enough art if you think it's -only- pomo).

Now, however, our environments are conspicuously contrived and saturated. We have the internet, inescapable advertising, immediate access to anything we want to see through our phones. Our environment is harder to pin down. But a postmodernist might note that this IS our environment and it is itself worth exploring. Our sense of personal identity has been fragmented almost beyond recognition. And that's exactly what we can recognize now.

[Anonymous No.11254718]

>>11254678
Why do you have an edit

[Anonymous No.11254748]

>>11254692
Nigger, why are you on /lit/ if you don't even read the very posts you reply to?

[Anonymous No.11254749]

Boy I hate threads when /pol/ pretends to care about art

[Anonymous No.11254779]

>>11254696
You have not read a single work from that list.

[Anonymous No.11254837]

>>11254664
In a way, yes. Just because you don't like certain forms of art, doesn't mean they're not art.

[Anonymous No.11254841]

>>11250170
The assimilation of arts into academia pretty much decimated our artistic culture. Art departments across America are run by people who still live in the 70s.

[Anonymous No.11254852]

>>11254837
Give me your address and I’ll personally send you several pieces of my best work.

[Anonymous No.11254855]

>>11254749
nothing wrong with taking art as an excuse to go on with their ~culture war~ nonsense

[Anonymous No.11254886]

interesting, 200+ thread and not a single d/ic/k insisting the true art nowadays is to be found among the concept art for bido gams and porn commissions

[Anonymous No.11254890]

>>11254855
The worst part is when they hold up cheesy neoclassicism as the pinnacle of art; not because they actually enjoy those works but merely just as a reaction against this strawman of "le Boogeyman postmodernism"

[Anonymous No.11254906]

>>11250187
If its the end times then that's because there won't be any artists left to determine the aesthetic value of a urinal, you bloody simp.

[Anonymous No.11254933]

>>11250736
that ass is art

[Anonymous No.11254947]

>>11254479
i wanna suck on that pen0r

[Anonymous No.11254954]

>>11250178
>>11250196
>>11250203
>>11250204

Holy shit, you fuckers fell right into it.

[Anonymous No.11255040]

>>11254509
>make baselless claim
>someone rightly ridicules you
>n-not an argument
why do brainlets always do this?

[Anonymous No.11255262]

tfw abstract or experimental music is so far superior to experimental art. Really goes to show how music is the purest form of art, and a direct communion with the will.

[Anonymous No.11256121]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11256172]

>>11254672
kek

[Anonymous No.11256189]

>>11254672
Of course it does when you see a painting in real life and not on a phone screen. Haven't you read Walter Benjamin?

[Anonymous No.11256209]

>>11255262
music is a craft bro

[Anonymous No.11256255]

>>11250660
original

[Anonymous No.11256268]

>>11250683
you're next

[Anonymous No.11256280]

>>11250736
settled

[Anonymous No.11256285]

>>11251206
fuck you Meyer !

[Anonymous No.11256325]

>>11250860
FTFY

[Anonymous No.11256359]

>>11251164
Krieg als Gesamtkunstwerk

[Anonymous No.11256379]

>>11254574
nope

[Anonymous No.11256395]

>>11254653
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4UBmjVuS4

[Anonymous No.11256422]

>>11254682
btfo bitch !
Sedlmayr forever !

[Anonymous No.11256441]

>>11250178
>>11250196
>>11250203
>>11250204
what is a joke?

[Anonymous No.11256448]

>>11254682
Where's Danto?

[Anonymous No.11256449]

>>11251322
>late romanticism
Impressionism was a reaction to the styles that directly preceded it, realism/naturalism and academicism, though.

[Anonymous No.11256454]

Because they shit up every board on this website with their unoriginal shitstain ideology. I'm just waiting for Gen Z to fucking wipe them out

[Anonymous No.11256459]

What do you feel when you see this?

[Anonymous No.11256596]

>>11256454
Who does?

[Anonymous No.11256712]

>>11256459
Is that from the australian cave?

[Anonymous No.11256843]

>>11254667
People told me this for years and it's not true. When I finally saw some Pollocks irl they were just bigger and uglier. I like other abstract expressionists, like Clyfford Still for example, but Pollock is just shit.

[Anonymous No.11256882]

>>11254667
>considerably larger
Number 18 is like 20 x 20 inches it's not very big

[Anonymous No.11256884]

>>11254509
It is important to not define terms of what we are discussing first, so at the end of the conversation we discover we're discussing over definitions and talking past each other.

[Anonymous No.11257086]

>>11250170
Postmodern art has taken a whole new level with the advent of the internet. It's fun and all to shit on garbage postmodernist art that takes postmodernism too seriously, but postmodernism really isn't as bad as people meme it to be.

[Anonymous No.11257183]

>>11250170
Postmodernism only has value within the context of the modernism it is critiquing.

[Anonymous No.11257191]

>>11257183
But doesn't all art?
>>11256459
This for example.

[Anonymous No.11257482]

>>11251599
minimalism is modernism par excellence

[Anonymous No.11257502]

Are the yba and koons supposed to be postmodern?Their work seems kind of boring for this day and age.

[Anonymous No.11257537]

Reminder that the "fractal" theory of Pollock's work is bullshit:
https://phys.org/news/2006-12-jackson-pollock-art-fractal-analysis.html

[Anonymous No.11257564]

>>11257537
Why do some people feel the need to present painters as demigods with amazing abilities?

[Anonymous No.11257602]

>>11250178
>>11250196
>>11250203
>>11250204
>>11251815
>>11252251
>>11253943
>>11254088
>>11254509
>>11254520
>OP makes rash generalisation using vague terms and generally sleazy rhetoric
>anon employs argumentative tactic that forces OP to articulate his point in a more specific manner, so it may be reasonably rebutted
>pseuds come out of the woodwork to cry "pretentious" and take the piss, being so painfully oblivious that they just bared their own hypocrisy and brainletism for all to see
i know this is all bait but come the fuck on lads

[Anonymous No.11257627]

>>11256268
I remember seeing this in LA.

[Anonymous No.11257699]

>>11256268
I recognize that spermatolasso. That's the loneliest cowboy in the west.

[Anonymous No.11257721]

>>11257537
I love this

[Anonymous No.11257789]

Is he art?

[Anonymous No.11257958]

>>11257789
Put Pepe in a meseum! Actually art snobs tend to lean left so they would never allow a Nazi symbol in their art exhibits

[Anonymous No.11258238]

>>11257602
if you didn't understand what op asked at first sight you are clearly a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11258259]

>>11250203

[Anonymous No.11258311]

any /Roger Scruton/ man in? Reckon he gets a lot right about contemporary art.

[Anonymous No.11258320]

>>11258311
a midwit anglo who thinks Metallica is good music and a cigarette shill

[Anonymous No.11258326]

>>11258320
didn't say I agreed with everything he said, merely his views on contemporary art are mostly spot on. Apparently conservative automatically equates to midwit on this board.

[Anonymous No.11258355]

>>11250378
The arguments and sentiments mainly revolve around this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

[Anonymous No.11258385]

>>11258355
>beauty
>Some people may be surprised at my not having called this “beauty.” Of course, to those who define beauty as “combinations of lines and colours that provoke aesthetic emotion,” I willingly conceded the right of substituting their word for mine. But most of us, however strict we may be, are apt to apply the epithet “beautiful” to objects that do not provoke that peculiar emotion produced by works of art. Everyone, I suspect, has called a butterfly or a flower beautiful. Does anyone feel the same kind of emotion for a butterfly or a flower that he feels for a cathedral or a picture; surely, it is not what I call an aesthetic emotion that most of us feel, generally, for natural beauty. I shall suggest, later, that some people may, occasionally, see in nature what we see in art, and feel for her an aesthetic emotion; but I am satisfied that, as a rule, most people feel a very different kind of emotion for birds and flowers and the wings of butterflies from that which they feel for pictures, pots, temples and statues. Why these beautiful things do not move us as works of art move us is another, and not an aesthetic, question. For our immediate purpose we have to discover only what quality is common to objects that do move us as works of art. In the last part of this chapter, when I try to answer the question — “Why are we so profoundly moved by some combinations of lines and colours?” I shall hope to offer an acceptable explanation of why we are less profoundly moved by others.

[Anonymous No.11258392]

>>11258385
>
Since we call a quality that does not raise the characteristic aesthetic emotion “Beauty,” it would be misleading to call by the same name the quality that does. To make “beauty” the object of the aesthetic emotion, we must give to the word an over-strict and unfamiliar definition. Everyone sometimes uses “beauty” in an unaesthetic sense; most people habitually do so. To everyone, except perhaps here and there an occasional aesthete, the commonest sense of the word is unaesthetic. Of its grosser abuse, patent in our chatter about “beautiful huntin’ ” and “beautiful shootin’,” I need not take account; it would be open to the precious to reply that they never do so abuse it. Besides, here there is no danger of confusion between the aesthetic and the non-aesthetic use; but when we speak of a beautiful woman there is. When an ordinary man speaks of a beautiful woman he certainly does not mean only that she moves him aesthetically; but when an artist calls a withered old hag beautiful he may sometimes mean what he means when he calls a battered torso beautiful. The ordinary man, if he be also a man of taste, will call the battered torso beautiful, but he will not call a withered hag beautiful because, in the matter of women, it is not to the aesthetic quality that the hag may possess, but to some other quality that he assigns the epithet. Indeed, most of us never dream of going for aesthetic emotions to human beings, from whom we ask something very different. This “something,” when we find it in a young woman, we are apt to call “beauty.” We live in a nice age. With the man-in-the-street “beautiful” is more often than not synonymous with “desirable”: the word does not necessarily connote any aesthetic reaction whatever, and I am tempted to believe that in the minds of many the sexual flavour of the word is stronger than the aesthetic. I have noticed a consistency in those to whom the most beautiful thing in the world is a beautiful woman, and the next most beautiful thing a picture of one. The confusion between aesthetic and sensual beauty is not in their case so great as might be supposed. Perhaps there is none; for perhaps they have never had an aesthetic emotion to confuse with their other emotions. The art that they call “beautiful” is generally closely related to the women. A beautiful picture is a photograph of a pretty girl; beautiful music, the music that provokes emotions similar to those provoked by young ladies in musical farces; and beautiful poetry, the poetry that recalls the same emotions felt, twenty years earlier, for the rector’s daughter. Clearly the word “beauty” is used to connote the objects of quite distinguishable emotions, and that is a reason for not employing a term which would land me inevitably in confusions and misunderstandings with my readers.

Scruton btfo before he was even born

[Anonymous No.11258605]

>>11250736
I'd like to fuck that pretty girl in the ass. Thanks for sharing that lovely picture.

[Anonymous No.11259789]

>>11250170
Wasn't Stella a modernist?

[Anonymous No.11259803]

Modern art is sustained by millionaire pseuds.

[Anonymous No.11259872]

>/lit/ trying to comprehend contemporary visual art

just stick to reading 19th century novels you absolute plebs

[Anonymous No.11259881]

>>11259872
>2011
>contemporary
plebius maximus

[Anonymous No.11259930]

Why do people who are against interpretation and abhore "2deep4u" art at the same time hold the believe that simple, authentic, unpretentious art is part of the postmodern conspiracy to make the plebus look dumb?

If youre able to look at the star filled sky in the night and say "Nice stars. I think its pretty how they twinkle. It makes me think about how lonely we are in the universe, kind of like how lonely i feel when i'm around people," why not look at Kandinsky and say "Nice shapes. Like the colors." and move on with your life? Even if millionares spend more than I would ever make in my lifetime on a canvas with someone's period blood mixed with spaghetti-o's, what effect does that have on being able to appreciate Carl Andre's floor tiles?

[Anonymous No.11259937]

>>11254696
You haven't even read Gombrich. How do you expect to be taken seriously by anyone? It's like trying to discuss theater without knowing who Aristotle was and assuming that he was a defender of Regietheater. You want high standards for art yet you yourself wouldn't dare touch a single book on actual art theory. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11260095]

>>11250623
Source on this pic?

[Anonymous No.11260118]

>>11256255
who made that sculpture?

[Anonymous No.11260138]

>>11254574
It looks nice.

[Anonymous No.11260236]

>>11251046
>dude im as much of a based nigger hating anime loving 4channer gentile as the next anon but dont you think not liking modern art and pedantic first year english majors is kind of fascist and alt right???

[Anonymous No.11260981]

>>11260236
I'm a crypto-reactionary who unironically enjoys modernist and contemporary art. sue me.

[Anonymous No.11260992]

>>11250170
>modern
>POSTmodern

You literally stated two different things

[Anonymous No.11262062]

>>11260095
found it on /biz/