/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2020529]

How do you explain this? Do you think this is a positive shift? Should every sort of expression be called art?

[Anonymous No.2020535]

Same thing happened in music, television and culture in general.

I shouldn't need to explain who did it.

[Anonymous No.2020564]

>>2020535
are you against racial diversity in film and television? i'm asking you, not the troll version of you that posted that picture

[Anonymous No.2020566]

Modernism

Blame the french revolutions.

[Anonymous No.2020569]

OP have you ever taken a art class past grade school?


Realistic renderings of angels and bible figures got old and people wanted to try new things. If all artist just made those kinds of art shit would get so old so fast.

[Anonymous No.2020572]

Trolling is a art.

[Anonymous No.2020586]

>>2020569


There was 600is years of angels and realism before people decided to do something else. (1200-1800)

Art then slowly became less restrictive. It went to shit, recently, in the 1940s.

[Anonymous No.2020590]

>>2020572

you mean "an" art.

[Anonymous No.2020598]

>>2020590

wily countertroll, no one bite

[Anonymous No.2020600]

>>2020586

ok 1, Hyperbole much, ALL art from 1940 to now is shit now, im sure if you looked hard enough you'd find yourself and artist you'd like

and 2, thats just like.. your opinion dude. Art is like the most subjective thing ever.

[Anonymous No.2020605]

>>2020564

Yes, it's pro-multiculturalism, pro-interracial breeding (as long as it's not Jews breeding with anyone else) propaganda.

[Anonymous No.2020607]

>>2020600
>art is the most subjective thing ever

[Anonymous No.2020610]

Modern art in America was mostly funded by CIA

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner01112003.html

[Anonymous No.2020616]

>>2020564
>>2020605

And no it's not a troll. Not everything you don't like or disagree with is a troll.

[Anonymous No.2020623]

>>2020616
>trolling

[d4rk000kingof/mu/ !!TlP6M7PkNVH No.2020625]

>>2020586

Your own post explains why you are wrong. 600 years vs 70. All of the renaissance, impressionist, generally 'classical' art that you are aware of is just the tip of the iceberg. The Louvre alone has galleries and galleries of renaissance art, most of it is thematically monotonous.

Equally classic works have been created since 1940 and are no doubt still being created, but we are up against a number of disadvantages identifying them.

1. The creative world has really opened up so that it is less easy to follow.
2. Given how rare truly brilliant works of art are historically, we shouldn't expect more than a handful per generation. Given (1), these are needles in a haystack.
3. It is always very difficult to appraise a period of time without historical distance. Art experts are most likely to do so, which is why we value their opinions, but even they might miss things, or overrate certain artists. The public (us) is traditionally backwards when it comes to realizing any sort of change as positive. You think that there weren't people like you when Picasso came along? Give it 200 years or so, our era will look at least as, if not more creative than any other before it.

Protip: Take a trip to the Pompidou centre in Paris (or you geographical equivalent) sometime; I used to think the same about modern art until I went there when I was 14 and had my mind blown.

[d4rk000kingof/mu/ !!TlP6M7PkNVH No.2020649]

>>2020610

It's nice to see you cited such a reputable source, you know, something unbiased, with no vendetta. Oh wait.

>>2020605

I don't see anything wrong with pro-multiculturalism or interracial marriage, but I do have to admit it is interesting that zionist Jews (who seem to be the natural allies of liberal pro-interracial, pro gay, people) are notoriously against the same practices as applied to themselves.

[Anonymous No.2020652]

>>2020607
>only my opinions are correct

[Anonymous No.2020660]

>>2020590

[Anonymous No.2020687]

>>2020649

>I don't see anything wrong with pro-multiculturalism or interracial marriage

>it is interesting that zionist Jews are notoriously against the same practices as applied to themselves.

It's more than interesting. I would say that multiculturalism, miscegenation and cultural Marxism in general are pretty much destroying western civilization (I just did, lols) but I don't bother talking about this kind of stuff here, it's futile.

[Anonymous No.2020726]

I know that art changes with time and shit, but that doesn't mean anything and everything should be labeled as art. All of the great paintings and sculptures from the past took a lot of talent and skill and time. But it seems like any asshole today can paint a piece of wood and defecate on it, and suddenly everyone is clamoring to display it at their gallery or museum.

[Anonymous No.2020734]

I think that part of it has to do with, well, our modern culture. As others have stated there is a good amount of art that is still very well crafted with mastery of color, design, material, etc. But the problem is that the stuff that gets reported on and the most press is the stuff that is the most 'new' and 'cutting edge' and the 'avant garde' of the Art World.

This is generally because of the world we live in. Arguments aside, that world is for the most part a consumerist society where all praise is given to what didn't exist yesterday. We exalt whatever can be termed 'new' and live for these novelties. Too seldom do we take the time to consider if these novelties are actually any better or any good at all. We are conditioned to a lifestyle of do do do do. So it doesn't matter if it's any good because tomorrow we will have something else to give our praise.

Trust me, there are still artists out there that are making beautiful works, but the masses and the media aren't concerned with the beautiful only the new. It takes an individual interest to seek out and find those artists. Beauty is not something that will come to you. The story of Apollo chasing Daphne through the forest lays this down clearly. You need to advert towards beauty.

[Anonymous No.2020737]

[Anonymous No.2020742]

>>2020737
superior version

[Anonymous No.2020747]

>>2020535
>Jews allegedly take over
>Arab heroes
>Yeah how about no

[Anonymous No.2020815]

>>2020600
>Art is like the most subjective thing ever.

so pomo

>>2020625

I mean only to say that the idea that everything can be art is too often used as an excuse for laziness and lack of talent or creativity. If you look at the mainstream movements from the 1940s onward you'll find mostly art that does not require extraordinary technical skill. I see them as developing out of a sort of a pissing contest where the movements try to out "avant-garde" each other.

Lots of great art has been produced post-1940, but this fact owes nothing to the postmodern understanding of art.

[Anonymous No.2020816]

>>2020586
I'd like to think Andrew Wyeth is the closest a modern painter has come to Rembrandt and Vermeer. Of course, the critics ridiculed him for painting in a realist style. Maybe critics ruined art. Maybe there were a bunch of shitty painters in the Renaissance too, whose works didn't stand the test of time, and maybe the contemporary phonies will fade away too.

[Anonymous No.2020918]

>>2020816

Andrew Wyeth is more like a modern day Arnold Bocklin

pic related

I like the artists that are represented at the evoke contemporary gallery in santa fe. There's a couple of really dope landscape painters that are like the modern day van gogh/cezanne/monet - impressionists.

They also have some good figure painters.

[Anonymous No.2020935]

>>2020649
>zionist Jews (who seem to be the natural allies of liberal pro-interracial, pro gay, people)

OK, now I have to say it:
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
You think liberal/left-wing types who advocate gay marriage and aren't racist are totally cool with Israel? You've never heard of a little place called Palestine? You've never noticed that it's the right-wing that's most gung-ho about supporting Israel?

facepalm.gif

[Anonymous No.2020950]

>>2020918
I'll be in Santa Fe soon and will check it out. Thanks!

[twattle !EA3bdMFX0. No.2020992]

Technology and the softening of the strong. Is this really a surprise?

[Anonymous No.2021906]

i can easly notice that people here judges first by technique then content and then aesthetic

you are not going to understand moder art doing that

[Anonymous No.2021910]

>>2021906

the modern aesthetic is so dry and conceptual though. nobody is that in love with the modern aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.2021916]

The difference between art then and art now is that religion used to actually mean something.

[Anonymous No.2021918]

Are you saying that batshit religion makes for amazing art and aethiesm makes for boring blah art?

[Anonymous No.2021926]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch

[Franz Liszt !!ixFboNvY7Y1 No.2021929]

The only thing on the right side of OP's pic that I have trouble digesting as "art" is the blank triptych.

[Anonymous No.2021931]

>>2021918
Absolutely, if you are head over heels believing all the crazy shit you read in the bible then you must be a super fucking inspired person and able to create some amazing shit. The shit they got these days is uninspiring,it's like they are trying to create something they've never seen,not even in their own minds.So it just comes out looking like shit 2.0 with sleek colors.

[Anonymous No.2021937]

>>2021918

it makes for a static scientific world view where apathy and disenchantment take the place of awe and wonder

seriously though, the atheists I know are so lost and apathetic to everything. fuckin kids without meaning devouring memes and anime complaining about the stupidest shit ever.

[Anonymous No.2021946]

I guess we are saying bi-polarity makes for dialectal materialism, otherwise known as ART.

[Anonymous No.2021951]

Just think, if people were allowed to leave Scientology and be free-minded again, they might create some amazing batshit crazy art.

[Anonymous No.2021952]

>>2021929

i've got to agree. the right side I can appreciate although I would value the works on the left side a little more. That triptych though... no one needs help looking at white walls.

[Anonymous No.2021953]

>>2021916

I think that art lost a lot of meaning once people started thinking that a photo of a toilet or a canvas with a bunch of soup cans were masterpieces. I sort of see it as a distrust of the artist's technique and instead, people look for what underlying messages a work might have:

"In Europe, audiences had a very different take on his [Warhol's "Campbell's Soup Cans] work. Many perceived it as a subversive and Marxist satire on American capitalism.[41] If not subversive, it was at least considered a Marxist critique of pop culture."

No one thought that but stuck-up art critics. This is really the same thing as Bloom telling people that Marxist readings of Shakespeare don't elaborate on anything except Marxism.

Notice how most often before "Pop-Art", a work's focus was based wholly or partly on reality, like the scene of a battle, a person or self-portrait, a landscape, a religious or literary figure, etc. What we get now are pieces that have definite meaning/intention in the author's mind, but not the audience. Ambiguity is fun in art but I don't like it when people go out of the ballpark with subjective interpretations that are only relevant to politics.

[Anonymous No.2021954]

Lack of discipline. Believe it or not, there was a time when artists worked sixteen hours a day just to survive, and success was a life-or-death gamble. Now it's about "inspiration," which is why you'll never see another Sistine Chapel. Pity, that.

[Anonymous No.2021958]

protip: realism can only get you so far

also, when the camera became popular, painting realistic portraits became kind of a drag.

[Anonymous No.2021968]

>>2021954

no one supports the Arts that way anymore as well.

Artists were simply artists. If they were good enough an affluent upper-class male affiliated with the state or church (more often than not) would come along and commission the shit out of him for a specific piece. That started to change around the time of Baroque art - vermeer, rembrandt, rubens, etc. Once the Americas were beginning to be colonized and mercantilism became all that and a bag of chips patrons of the arts became affluent middle-class citizens alongside the state and church. Slowly and steadily most patrons of arts became individual buyers.

The arts were once funded by state and church for great public works and now they're funded by the market of capitalism for homes, restaurants, hotels, waiting rooms, museums, etc.

[Anonymous No.2021970]

All artists are batshit insane, amirite?

[Anonymous No.2021972]

>>2021954

protip: Michelangelo was inspired

[Anonymous No.2021976]

>>2021970

probably. I mean look at all that crazy literature out there. Philosophers too.

fuck it, we're all crazy

[Anonymous No.2021996]

art now. Or then?

[Anonymous No.2022075]

>>2021953
I blame Andy Warhol and the camera for destroying the integrity of art.

[Anonymous No.2023246]

>>2022075
Gotta agree with that one,i despise Andy Warhol and that shit he calls art.

[Anonymous No.2023254]

>>2020529
>>2020529

All I see in this pic is a lot of skill and effort on the left, and whimsy and blythe expression on the right.

Modern arts needs to learn some kraft before it kunsts.

[Anonymous No.2023268]

>>2022075
>camera destroying art

Do you seriously not consider photography to be a legitimate art form?

[Anonymous No.2023280]

>>2023268
Not when any 18 year old girl with a $800 camera is instantly a professional photographer

[Anonymous No.2023282]

>>2022075
I disagree on the camera part, just watch a Tarkovsky movie.

But as for Andy Warhol, my friend and I have had many discussions on, "If you could go back in time and kill one person, who would it be?" and the result is always the same: Andy Warhol

[Anonymous No.2023300]

>>2020586
art died in the early 1800's, mate

[Anonymous No.2023302]

Cinema and literature are the only two popular, viable forms of contemporary art. Shame about painting, he was a bro.

[Anonymous No.2023304]

>>2023302
You forgot Architecture

[d4rk000kingof/mu/ !!TlP6M7PkNVH No.2023306]

>>2023302

And, astoundingly, you forgot music.

[Anonymous No.2023309]

>>2020726
>But it seems like any asshole today can paint a piece of wood and defecate on it, and suddenly everyone is clamoring to display it at their gallery or museum.
>any asshole
>everyone
>clamoring

cool story, bro

[Anonymous No.2023310]

>>2023304
Architecture has grown to be just as bad as painting though. Cubic or spherical houses are not pretty.

[Anonymous No.2023325]

>>2023310
We've put men on the moon and men are still content with their dreams of mass-produced ranch houses, taking all the worst parts of the industrial revolution.

[Anonymous No.2023330]

>>2023310
>complaining about cube and sphere.

The major themes of architecture have always been square and circle, cube, sphere and pyramid.

[Anonymous No.2023331]

I prefer Gothic architecture.
On my other computer, I have quite a few pictures of the Cathedral at Cologne, in Germany. I think a building like that is the pinnacle of architecture.

[Anonymous No.2023338]

all that old shit we do better now do. FUCK YEAH USA!!!!

[Anonymous No.2023339]

>>2023330
When your house is a box, it is not pretty or interesting. I don't care if a square is a major theme in architecture. When all you use is squares, it is just stupid and ugly. Like the one in the picture here: >>2023325

[Anonymous No.2023341]

>>2023339
show me something you consider interesting

[Anonymous No.2023343]

>>2023341
I've always thought this building looked neat.

[Anonymous No.2023346]

>>2023343
>Doesn't like cubes and spheres
>Shows me a Venturi-inspired platonic solid construction

It's the same fucking thing

[Anonymous No.2023347]

>>2023343
That fucking clock tower

[Anonymous No.2023348]

>>2023346
Buddy I'm just looking at this as a normal person. I don't have any idea what you're talking about. I can tell, however, that you're misunderstanding me. I do not hate cubes and spheres. I hate when everything is all the same.

[Anonymous No.2023349]

>>2023348
This is what it's copied from

[Anonymous No.2023350]

I've finally started to really enjoy modern art. I think art reflects consciousness, and in the modern day, our consciences are really confused/twisted/meta. That's why you see art that reflects that.

I understand why people see some weird "art" as bullshit, but I figure, if it's got any kind of beauty and it gets you thinking, I'm ok with it.

[Anonymous No.2023351]

>>2023349
Yeah I like the Pantheon too.

[Anonymous No.2023352]

>>2023351
We moved away from that because literally every state capitol and building in DC was copied from the Greeks and Romans. And then there was a reaction. (ref The Fountainhead)(i know)

[Anonymous No.2023355]

>>2020598
hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.2023356]

>>2023352
In any case, people like you might like Mario Botta, Robert Venturi and possibly Michael Graves. Their Architecture takes a little getting used to, though.

[Anonymous No.2023358]

>>2023350
Well there's a difference between weird art and "not art", and it is that "not art" is exactly what it sounds like: not art. Art is still art if it's weird, see Un Chien Andalou for reference.
But I refuse to believe that a blank canvas that someone spilled paint on is art.

[Anonymous No.2023359]

>>2023358
And yet there are still "artists" out there who will do just that and go "eh, works for me" and that would be their masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.2023362]

face it, people need to be educated on beauty.

[Anonymous No.2023370]

>>2023362
Yeah, I picked up my Plato and started reading Phaedrus. And then it turns into homosex. Godammit.

[Anonymous No.2023374]

With the invention of photography, traditional methods of realistic depiction became inefficient and unnecessary. In order to preserve its prestige and mystique, art becomes increasingly unrealistic and conceptual.

[Anonymous No.2023384]

>>2023374
Even since Plato there's been an aversion to imitative art

[Anonymous No.2023395]

Our cultural understanding has gone from one tied strictly to christian or hellenistic symbolism and developed withing that framework, to one not tied to a specific symbolic universe and but to some extent tries to reach a universal symbolism.

[Anonymous No.2023860]

>not judging art by its aesthetic alone first

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2023876]

>>2020535
Disney, even in its inception, was one of the key contributers to the demise of animation, if you know your kricfalusi

[Anonymous No.2023877]

>>2023860

Is this good art?
A rhetorical question. The modern consensus is no.

[Anonymous No.2023892]

Fuck art, seriously.

[Anonymous No.2023920]

>>2023876
>demise of animation

when did such a thing occur? you're interested in animation?

[Anonymous No.2023931]

Art is good when it generates some kind of emotion within a person. The problem with modern art is that it's very abstract. When I look at a baroque painting for example, I am visually stimulated and appreciate it's "objective beauty". I'm all: 'shit nigga, what skill, what colors etc."

But a lot of modern art is abstract and I am left unimpressed because I do not know how to interpret it. So modern art becomes like one giant circle jerk for the elite, those who know how to "decode" it: artists, critics, collectors etc.

As a side note, I've been around in artistic circles and I gotta tell you, so many of these people are wankers. Smug but at the same time surprisingly bland wankers.

[Anonymous No.2023934]

>>2023931
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch
Congratulations, this is your secret decoder ring key to the arty club..

[Anonymous No.2023946]

>>2020529
I suppose you dislike contemporary music too? Or does your classicist wankery only apply to art.

One of my favorite artists, Stelarc showing off his third ear.

[Anonymous No.2023948]

Development in art is as necessary as development in culture, as the boundaries and conventions of the artistic process is pushed, consequent to perpetual analysis, insight and variation.
Art develops like weapon technologies. There's no going back. Making art according to old practices and trends is like reenacting a 2000 years gone war that was thought with spears, it's "quaint".
New art cannot be said to be worse than old art, as the quality of a work of art can only be judged by the prevailing artistic standards of the time it was made.

[Anonymous No.2023949]

>>2023946
But I should be more specific, I enjoy much modern and contemporary art, but I'm not that into abstract art. I think all art needs subject matter, but that need not mean any kind of realism, figuration or perspective.

Here is Ashley Bickerton's "Abstract Art for People (Bad)"

[Anonymous No.2023954]

>Art is good when it generates some kind of emotion within a person.

Nabokov:
"First, there is the comparatively lowly
kind which turns for support to the simple emotions and is of a definitely personal nature.
(There are various subvarieties here, in this first section of emotional reading.) A situation in a
book is intensely felt because it reminds us of something that happened to us or to someone we
know or knew. Or, again, a reader treasures a book mainly because it evokes a country, a
landscape, a mode of living which he nostalgically recalls as part of his own past. Or, and this is
the worst thing a reader can do, he identifies himself with a character in the book. This lowly
variety is not the kind of imagination I would like readers to use."

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2023956]

>>2023948
>prevailing artistic standards of the time it was made.
But such standards don't appear out of a vacuum, they are part of a history of conventions in a discipline. Such standards when invoked either presuppose such conventions as their basis or are invoked in opposition (or as successors) to such conventions; they never escape them.

[Anonymous No.2023978]

>>2023954

and the point is? That art should not generate emotion? That it should not generate lowly emotions brought upon by identification with the subject? What is a "high, noble" emotion?

[Anonymous No.2023991]

this fucking thread, you fucking guys

[Anonymous No.2023996]

>>2020625
>Give it 200 years or so, our era will look at least as, if not more creative than any other before it.
>creative

I've never liked this word out of instinct. It doesn't mean anything other than to highlight that someone likes making art, and it implies something mystical which separates the artistic from the inartistic, when becoming an artist is a long, arduous process of practice and study, not a product of "creative" whim.
I looked up the history of the word on wikipedia and it confirmed my instinct that it was a word dreamed of in a romanticist era a few hundred years ago, and was eventually abandoned by intellectuals because it was bankrupt as a concept.

Of course, US culture likes taking words from academics (especially from psychologists) into their pop culture. It's a silly term, and probably even does harm in certain places. In it's day it was reserved for artistic genius, now an 8 year old kid who enjoys making crude paintings can be told he is creative, while other kids are told they aren't. It should be expunged from your vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.2024005]

>>2023996
Inspired then, if you have to use another term.

[Anonymous No.2024008]

>>2023956
Yes of course, conventions are tweaked and reinforced and varied upon. When I say conventions I don't mean the broadest conventions like narrative, plot and metaphor in literature, or colour and form in painting, or rythm and harmony in music, i'm more talking about how these things are varied upon in the history of art, the different techniques used that elaborate on those fundamental conventions.

[Anonymous No.2024015]

Artistic conventions and progress be fucked. Same with ellicting emotions. Art should be political/ideological expression of its maker. The artistic process is the creator attempting to sort out feelings, thoughts, memories, concepts. The standard of value should be only how fufilled the artist feels, not any kind of comerical/gallery success, or mastery of skill.

As a viewer you shouldn't be judging for techinical prowess, attention to convention or breaking of standards. If you can create an ideological connection, that is any kind of conceptual/emotional identification between your self and the work, then it is a good work (for you).

Any kind of objective standards for art are bull shit, taste is ideological in nature, what you value in the work is your value system, and yours alone. Remember, your pleasure in the work only exists in your mind, a work is not good or bad. your expierence with work is good or bad.

Here is some art I made.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2024020]

>>2024015
>Art should be political/ideological expression of its maker.

yeah why didn't marx just paint us a picture

[Anonymous No.2024031]

Well let's see, back then you needed fucking skill to paint things or sculpt things that looked as good as they do.

Now, you only need to have seen an abstract piece before, and some metal to play with or a paint brush to flop around on canvas.

[Anonymous No.2024040]

>>2024020
All art is ideological, it has givens or conventions. these conventions highlight what it values. Ideology is a system of valuing something over something else. Classical art is just as ideological as any marxist inspired art. This should be obvious, the primary subjects of classical art are history and religion scenes. You can pretend the angels, Davids and Christs are neutral, but they aren't. Ideology proliferates itself in all mediums (art, cinema, theatre, literature, phillosophy, music). This is why even if everyone stops believing in Christianity, we won't forget it as its spread its values/stories/ideology in as many mediums as possible.

[Anonymous No.2024049]

>>2024015
is your piece about a mexican bum relaxing on a beach being asked to skin an alligator and he doesn't want to but needs money so he obliges?

[Anonymous No.2024051]

>>2024031
Skill is a ghost that people who don't make art invoke. Skill is what prevents you from making art, when in truth what is preventing you is the fact your not making anything.

It definately helps, but you need alot more than it. Luckily, its also something that comes fairly easily once you do it long enough.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.2024053]

>>2024015
Art is also about communication. You're positing a sort of solipsism for standards of art. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. Mastery of skill and success as measured by others esteem are valuable standards. If your art communicates nothing (and aesthetics is something which is communicated in itself), it is lacking in a very serious way.

[Anonymous No.2024054]

>>2024015

All art attempts to be beautiful. Good art is beautiful. Bad art is not.

You are a very bad artist.

[Anonymous No.2024055]

>>2024051
Well, skill, yes, but also being a giant pretentious faggot who convinces other giant pretentious faggot that I'm important.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2024059]

>>2024040
>All art is ideological, it has givens or conventions. these conventions highlight what it values
I would say its conventions are born out of what it values but w/e

>Ideology is a system of valuing something over something else
That's quite a 21st century conception of what ideology is in contrast to the analytically useful late 19th to early 20th century conception of ideology as 'false consciousess' but w/e who needs analytically useful concepts nowadays right

I mean, this is just a fancy way of saying (and no more informative at that)
>opinions
only on a dialectical level, it doesn't address that ideologies, as value systems, can be better or worse than one another depending on the manner in which their values operate relative to overall human flourishing, whether some values are in fact misguided and collapse in on themselves, which is more common (now more than ever given the plurality of values in our time) in western society would like to think

[Anonymous No.2024060]

>>2024049
It's titled Elephant Lady, its a collage of consumer signs meant to imply a person. My "hypothesis" is that people can be defined through their possesions and that I could make the implication of a person without needing to depict a body. Think of it like an ink blot, look and ask "what kind of person is this?". Which is what you did.

Here is another

[Anonymous No.2024070]

>>2024060
what a bunch of bimbos. wouldn't bang.

[Anonymous No.2024074]

>>2024060
Why are you posting this here? Take to /ic/, there it will be criticized properly.

[Anonymous No.2024078]

>>2024059
>human flourishing
>giving objective value to art

I don't think so

[Anonymous No.2024079]

>>2024055
well, that's not part of art or trade, it's part of self-advertisement.

[Anonymous No.2024082]

>>2024074
>/ic/
>not full of talentless fan artists

[Anonymous No.2024088]

>>2024059
You and I have disagreed with this before. Ideology as false consciousness might have made sense for Trotsky but I don't think today any system Ideology could be any more less or false than others. I sincerely doubt objective standards of Human Flourishing exist with out marginalizing all sorts of minority views.

Instead, I propose some hard subjectivism. A persons Ideology is theirs alone, and thats a good thing. Its something to be trusted but to be simultaneously skeptical of. One should invest effort in better understanding biases and predispositions, until they become firm. This process of firming, rejecting and accepting an ideology should put you in a position to value your beliefs over those of others. But this has nothing to do with objective human flourishing, only self-realization and a will to change the world in your image.

In general, art has very little to do with any kind of objective human flourishing as you've defined it before. It doesn't kill people, it doesn't keep them from starving. It won't cure cancer, it probably won't usher in any utopias either.

[Anonymous No.2024096]

>>2024088
>In general, art has very little to do with any kind of objective human flourishing as you've defined it before. It doesn't kill people, it doesn't keep them from starving. It won't cure cancer, it probably won't usher in any utopias either.

>Doesn't remember D&E's troll position towards math and science
lol

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2024107]

>>2024088
>I sincerely doubt objective standards of Human Flourishing exist with out marginalizing all sorts of minority views.
Whoah buddy this has nothing to do with objective standards. And I should hope it marginalises a couple of views because some of those views are those with deluded value systems and bodily incapacities (which of course, lead to deluded value systems in the first place); it's no wonder they're minority views!

>Instead, I propose some hard subjectivism
What do you mean by 'subjectivism'

>A persons Ideology is theirs alone, and thats a good thing
But a person's ideology is never theirs alone, because language is dialogic, an individual inherits the language they use, they never produce it ex nihilo.

>In general, art has very little to do with any kind of objective human flourishing as you've defined it before.
Of course it does, but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with objectivity. Art makes the lives of countless individuals better, not everyone, because not everyone is capable of experiencing and thus deriving pleasure from great art.

[Anonymous No.2024113]

>>2024082
>only art gallery hacks are allowed to criticize my work
>not summer

There are lurkers there who don't post their artwork, but sure know the way around. I myself am one, having posted only one study in a span of 8 months.

[Anonymous No.2024145]

Anyone else find it ironic when artists call the fruits of their wankery/jizz their "work"?

[Anonymous No.2024165]

>>2024107
Of course its not ex nihilo, but it is unique. The idea the ideology is a perfect imprint is ridiculous. Its a collage of all sorts of ideological ideas. And if no one can create a new ideology where did they come from to begin with? Ideology can be at least partially, self produced.

My hard subjectivism is that you should explore your tastes in disregard to any kind of objective standard (which is never objective but instead externally produced, cultural/historical/institutional convention). That is, don't fool yourself into thinking your very personal, unique beliefs and tastes are objective and elsewhere. They only exist in your head, although others may share some of it, in their heads.

a soft subjectivism would take this to mean some kind of fuzzy "everyone is equal, because I can't value myself over others".

I suppose I'd marginalize minority or majority views, but not on any kind of delusion that I have objective reason to do so, only personal impassioned belief. The reason I like this kind of subjectivity is that it makes you fully responsible for your actions and ideology. If you dislike something, or want to work against some trend, you shouldn't claim objective reason or the good of human flourishing, but instead your own desire to create the world. To think your ideology can assume what is best for all human flourishing is very unlikely, I guess I replace your concept of human flourishing with self-realization.

[Anonymous No.2024166]

>>2024060
>people can be defined through their possesions and that I could make the implication of a person without needing to depict a body

i like this nigga

[Anonymous No.2024169]

>>2024166
Thanks, is kind of a pessimistic idea, but it provided a good oportunity to think through ideas on exoticism and the signs of personality.

[Anonymous No.2024185]

>>2024169
i think is more like portraits, you are making a portrait without thier image, you represent thier personality by thier junk

[Anonymous No.2024193]

>he thinks technique is the most important thing in art!

[Anonymous No.2024194]

>>2024185
The construction is both mine and the viewers. I provide "personified" objects, and the viewer constructs a personality, the image of a person. I wanted to see how many cultural and sexual stereotypes I might present without explicitly presenting a person.

Essentially, the stereotypes and sexual signifiers must be shared between me and the viewer, or such a conjunction of objects into a subject couldn't work.

Here is another

[Anonymous No.2024200]

>>2024193

Composition is the most important aspect of art. Technique just makes failures more respectable.

[Anonymous No.2024204]

>>2024194
i slike what i am saying, is the representation of a person without thier image

[Anonymous No.2024205]

Another reason I'm skeptical of skill. I've got some, in the tradiontal sense. In addition to playing with collage and sculpture, I draw and paint (although unfortnately mostly digitally because of costs).
>>1010990
thats an illustration I'm working on over at /ic/

[Anonymous No.2024207]

>>2020535
You shouldn't be complaining about Gay Days, Walt Disney was a known advocate for gay rights.

[Anonymous No.2024209]

>>2024205
>I draw and paint (although unfortnately mostly digitally because I have no talent)

[Anonymous No.2024210]

>>2024200
I like this. I agree composition, is more than a formal or technical aspect. How you organize your information (be it lines of color or text) is an ideological propisition. The way you tell the story is part of the story itself, not just a set of skills you practice or get "good" at. What you have to say will dictate how you say it, it can't be the reverse, which many people who hold to ideas about objective skill believe.

[Anonymous No.2024215]

>>2024209
Well, here is some non digital painting then. But seriously, paint is expensive,

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2024216]

>>2024215
You don't seem to be that bothered about wasting it though

[Anonymous No.2024218]

>>2024216
Why have you been so mean recently? ;_;

Is something going on that you want to talk about?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2024220]

>>2024218
sorry anon that was a low blow

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.2024224]

!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.2024229]

>>2023877
>The modern consensus is no.
No it isn't.

[Anonymous No.2024234]

>>2024216
>d&e is not saging

>>2024215
do you paint with oils? acrylics are cheaper

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.2024236]

>>2024234
There is fair chance that OP is D&E.

[Anonymous No.2024239]

More awesome contemporary art that might appeal to a classicist. Charlie White's compositions are very Renaissance oriented.

[Anonymous No.2024244]

>>2024234
Arcyllics are cheaper, but you pay for what you get. That painting was made with some low end oils, running 15$ a tube on average. decent acryllics might cost around 12 or so, but you'll still shell out 15+ for some colors.

Digital :Painting is free.
Video Art is also cheap, if you guys want to see a video project I'm working on you can check a rough cut here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz6WAYs_284

But to keep this from devolving into a "show off my work" thread, I'll ask a question to all of you. Why is that people think they are supposed to like the "cannon"? I think its a good thing if you dislike work, it shows discernment and specificity. This thread started with the issue in the wrong manner, "How can people like this shit", and not a serious investigation of "Why do I hate it so much?".

pic is a Richard Prince painting.

[Anonymous No.2024249]

>>2024193
Hey retard, Art is all about technique.
art (from latin) = technique (from greek), they are the same word.

[Anonymous No.2024253]

>>2024244

I hate most art. Work that requires technical skill is at least respectable.

<<<<< good art

[Anonymous No.2024256]

>>2024200
>Composition is the most important aspect of art. Technique just makes failures more respectable.

But the overall composition of Shakespare's plays wasn't that great in comparison to his technique.

[Anonymous No.2024257]

>>2024244
>Arcyllics are cheaper, but you pay for what you ge
i dont understand, are you telling me that acrylics dont worth using?

[Anonymous No.2024261]

>>2024249
I don't think a dictionary definition is going to help here. No one who spoke latin thought of art the way we do. A greek or roman would use the word across genre. An art of sword fighting, an art of painting, an art of statecraft, whatever. In this sense, art does literally mean technique.

Starting in the Renisance the idea of Art was that of the fields of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, with their parent skill of Drawing. The term art began refering to the objects of these categories. Art went from being a method, to an object. That is the way most people use Art today, to refer to the object of an artists practice, or sometimes even the whole of his activity, not just the object but the action.

We can look at Egyptian statuary, and call it art, but An ancient egyptian would only consider it a statue (maybe something religious as well).

[Anonymous No.2024263]

>Modern art these days is only decoded
ITT: Surrealism doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.2024265]

>>2024257
I'm saying their of comparable cost, if you want really bad arcyllics they are cheap (sometimes less than 6$), but this kind of "Crayola Paint" is going to look like ass, mix poorly, and generally be a pain in the ass you don't want to deal with.

When I do larger sculpture projects I'm ussually buying acryllic or enamel house paint, its a good cost and you can get lots of variety. A quart of house enamel will cost you 15-30 depending on sheen and color.

More Charlie White photos

[Anonymous No.2024285]

>>2024256

Composition is just not
just about the structure of a story. It the way the plot, characterization, themes etc. work together to create a complete work.

You cannot say that Shakespeare didn't consistently produce masterfully composed works.

[Anonymous No.2024338]

The difference between art then and now is effort. Back in the days art and craft were indistinguishable. Craft requires effort. Today, craft is practically frowned upon. Art is seen as expression, and all expression is equal. You can smear shit on wall, hang cardboard boxes from ceiling, give them imaginative names and there you go: it's art. Effortless and expressive.

The upside is that everybody can now participate in creating art. No need to master technique or buy expensive materials.

The downside is inflation. Expression becomes diluted. And it is possible that if the trend of separating craft from art is taken to the extreme, the only thing separating art from "stuff" are the walls of galleries. The audience already is wondering what is the point of going to the galleries when they see "stuff" indistinguishable from art all around them.

If Michelangelo was a working painter today, he'd be ridiculed and laughed out of Sixtine Chapel.

[Anonymous No.2024351]

>he has the thinker in the "art then" category

facepalm.jpg

[Anonymous No.2024356]

>>2024351

Modernism didn't go to shit until later.

[Anonymous No.2024363]

Art "then" is a pretty fucking narrow category. Placing are as everything post Gotti selectively euro-centric is beyond stupid.

Also, the "art then" that you have narrowly and dogmatically represented is not realistic in relation to the "art now" that is hyper-realism. Tell me whenever you have seen someone who looks like the Mona Lisa. She's just a highly rendered cartoon. If you saw her in real life you'd freak the fuck out. It's not photographic. Look at El Greco, my favorite Renaissance painter) those are not realistic renderings, nor are they trying to be. It is a fundamentally flawed argument to think those artists were trying to simply represent reality. The closest thing you have to that is Raphael, who most art fans would agree, is the most boring painter in history.

Art is context. That is all.

[Anonymous No.2024375]

OP does not understand what Cezanne did.

[Ziggy Stardust !LrtpfUHOC. No.2024377]

Most things get boring

[Anonymous No.2024402]

>>2024377
Actually, it's exhaustion. "Boring" is not the cause.

[Anonymous No.2024415]

Picture on the bottom right of the 'Art Then' is a piece of fascist propaganda. its called Readiness, the artists is named Breker. If you are a jew/gypsy/pole/fag and OP asks to use your stove don't let him.

[Anonymous No.2024419]

MAYEB YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ART /LIT/

[Anonymous No.2024447]

another of my favorite sculptures. Jeff Koons

[Anonymous No.2024657]

For those of you arguing about the value of art, i think that it's important to realize that there are different types of value that can be placed upon a work of art, besides monetary value.

All this is under the assumption that you're judging the work of art -as- a work of art. This is important.

One is intrinsic value - this is the value the viewer places upon the work based on his experience of the work. Your experience, good or bad, if you like it or not, if you laugh at it or cry or shrug your shoulders at it is the intrinsic value or the art.

The second is the instrumental value - this is what you take away from the work of art. If you see something that inspires you in such a way that you change your perspective or go out to set something in motion or re-evaluate your values then the work has an instrumental value.

In light of these two distinct values, some art is better than others. Does the classic baroque, renaissance, mannerist, symbolist, pre-raphealite, romantic or realist (the terms used for periods of art before late 19th-20th century) art still hold any instrumental value for people these days? Not so much. Do they still hold intrinsic value? Very much so - that art kicks ass, of course you're going to appreciate it face to face.

Now whether or not the modern age has art that holds instrumental and intrinsic values is questionable. What did impressionism inspire? What did cubism inspire? What did the futurists inspire? What did the fauvists, the german expressionists, the abstract expressionists, the dadists, the pop artists, the minimalists, the conceptualists, the performance artists, and whatever the fuck is happening now, what have these art movements inspired?

Do they have an instrumental value?
Yes, some of it does.

Does any of it have intrinsic value? In my opinion - less and less (chronologically) do people value their experience face to face with modern art.

[Anonymous No.2024668]

For the essay section, you should be able to basically choose a book that you are familiar with and be able to write a coherent well-organized essay on it. Can you sit down, and spill out 2-3 pages of non-garbage in 45 minutes? If so, you are in good shape for this section. Interestingly, for the essay portion, you should google for some advice- it turns out that AP graders have a woefully short amount of time to evaluate each answer. One professor did an informal study asking graders to assign grades to essays by holding them up at a distance and looking at just the length and paragraph organization to assign a grade. It turns out that just by glancing (without reading) essays to assign a grade captures 80% of the variance of the actual grading process. (less than 1 page? bad. One mono-paragraph? Suck. Scribbling out crap left and right? Fail.)

2) Download the sample tests from the College Board and practice with them. There are free tests that most people do not even take advantage of. The questions you miss-- take note of them, and why you missed them. Were you missing key vocab? Were you seduced by an interesting sounding correct answer that did not answer the question given?

Also, use the multiple choice section to give you hints on how to do the free-responses. There are hints there-- formulaic ways and techniques to analyze verse.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.2024673]

>intrinsic value - this is the value the viewer places upon the work based on his experience of the work

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/#WhaIntVal

[Anonymous No.2024705]

>>2024673
semantics

I mean that I can experience the work of art as the work itself and the valuable qualities are of the work. The nature of the work creates an experience and the benefits of that experience are intrinsic to the experience not just products of it.

[Anonymous No.2024723]

thread is tldr, but I think it's kind of funny that a person from, say, 1500 would think that the pictures in the left side all look as different from each other as they do from the right side.