[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 15 KB, 473x454, pondering_roman_consul.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6043354 No.6043354 [Reply] [Original]

Why do so many people have problems with non realist art?

>> No.6043358

This glorious display of thinking sums up every major reactionary and juvenile view held on the subject:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

>> No.6043361
File: 1.74 MB, 1850x1841, Hirasawa.Ui.full.345676.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6043361

>>6043354
because they are plebs.

>> No.6043383

>>6043354
Because of their degenerate minds.

>>6043361
>because they are plebs.
And they would see it the other way around on this too.

They are the worst kind of art critic. They are the dogmatic [coughs] Christian [coughs] kind of art critic. "I am absolutely right, ur all wrong"

>> No.6044927

>>6043383
>>6043361
Pleb pleb pleb

Find a new word you autists and stop telling me a urinal can be art

Or are your heads too far up your own asses

>> No.6044937

>>6043354
because they don't seem to understand that mimesis hasn't been the job for art for 2000 years

>> No.6044983

>>6043358
>"Let's celebrate what we know is good, and ignore what we know is not"

>> No.6044985

>>6044983
>logic

Oh no how terrible

>> No.6044987

The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists.. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.
---Banksy

>> No.6044990

Setting the "pleb" thing aside, I don't dislike non realistic art, I dislike art that doesn't display technical skill, and I dislike art that claims meaning without displaying it, effectively existing only withing the artist's mind.

>> No.6044997
File: 42 KB, 500x382, 1418587716317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6044997

Not gonnna dump my whole folder, but art is being systematically attacked by the jewish, the low classes, the mediocre, and the hipsters.

Cult of consumption and mediocrity destroys all that is beautiful for the sake of making consumption the highest ideal--it is the mentality of weeds--for a weed will rather strangle a rose than let it grow near them. That is why roses have thorns.

>> No.6045005

>>6044985
>logic
>art

>> No.6045012

>>6044997
please dump more pics

also i agree with you. I've heard a lot of Modern art is simply a way for people to launder money/ give large "gifts" to people without it being taxed.

>> No.6045023

>>6045012
>I've heard a lot of Modern art is simply a way for people to launder money/ give large "gifts" to people without it being taxed.

Also true.

Here I'll give you an imgr link to all my "art politics" folder. Gimme a sec.

>> No.6045034

>>6045012
thats how its always been though

plus, why wouldnt they be able to do it with realist art?

the art world is a cesspit, their work isnt

>> No.6045041

>>6044997
>Not gonnna dump my whole folder, but art is being systematically attacked by the jewish, the low classes, the mediocre, and the hipsters.
No it isn't, you /pol/ist baboon
You seem to implicate hyper-capitalism as the main problem. This I can agree with.

>>6045012
It's an industry for the rich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h__zQz6awu0

>> No.6045043

Contemporary art has been ruined by the false belief that concepts=artistic value. The artist is not a concept maker. Concepts may be grafted alongside the work of art, but never by the Artist (but rather the philosopher/critic).

A great deal of affective intensity is simply absent in contemporary art. The less the artist speaks of concepts and more of affects, the closer a realization they have of the role of the artist. A good case in point in this is to read Francis Bacon's interviews and see how quickly he brushes away the attempt to pin him as a conceptualist first, and artist second.

>> No.6045050

>>6045034
>>6045043
>Art I don't like isn't really art.

Please stop.

>> No.6045053

>>6045034
because then the person receiving the gift would have to actually be an artist. With modern art the person can just throw some paint on a canvas or have a rock put in a museum and receive that money. i'm sure it could be and probably has been done with realist pieces, it is just easier with non realist stuff.

>> No.6045056

>>6045050
>Anything is art as long as the artist says its art
come on

>> No.6045065

>>6045012
'ere you got m8

http://imgur.com/a/nUMjA

>> No.6045083

>>6045065
thanks man

>> No.6045085

>>6045083
De nada.

>> No.6045088

>>6044997
You forget the rich, who are the ones funding this whole business.

>> No.6045099

>>6044997
> the low classes, the mediocre, and the hipsters.
Sure as hell aren't buying the stuff.

>> No.6045102

Sheeple please.
http://mileswmathis.com/launder.pdf

>> No.6045104
File: 6 KB, 184x184, 1376278947334.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045104

>>6044927
>He thinks he has the credibility to determine what is and isn't art

>> No.6045107
File: 414 KB, 1280x1271, 1419669569605.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045107

ITT: people ho don't understand that concept test of time also applies to other kinds of art and not just literature

>> No.6045110

>>6044997
Was 9-11 an inside job?

>> No.6045111

>>6045056
Butterflaps is right.

This one time at school I went into the toilets, put the toilet lid down and shat on it. I don't know why. It was one of those nasty shits that turn to diarrhea at the end and go everywhere. As I was walking out of the cubicle the cleaner caught me, saw what I had done, and took me to the principal. The principal was just about to call my parents when I asked if we could talk to Mrs Byron, the art teacher. When she came in, and seemed as disgusted at everyone else, I said, "this wasn't a random act of scatological behavior, it is a piece of art that represents my experience in a contemporary western education system."

Mrs. Byron jumped to her feet and squealed with delight. "He's a genius," she said to the principal, "we need to submit this piece to an exhibition." Two months later and this toilet seat with crusted shit was displayed in an a local gallery, some European magazine ran a piece on me claiming I was a 'child prodigy', and the state institute for art awarded me with $25k.

>> No.6045117
File: 11 KB, 142x142, 1419956669049.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045117

>art isn't supposed to be enjoyable

>> No.6045119

also, why are so many retarded reactionary conspiracists on my /lit/?

>> No.6045148

>>6043354

Because for some reason people in the 21st Century still like to hold on to arbitrary categories such as "art", "good", "bad", etc. Modern art in many ways is an unveiling of arbitrarity of these (to be quite honest, it's the only it's for) and for obvious reasons this doesn't sit well with the thinking of christian-judaeo dogma (this includes most athiest). Art is a massive spook. There's absolutely no reason why farting or eating hotdogs can't be art except tradition. Grow out of the concept of art and come to appreciate the realm of craft instead. You'll stop imposing your unfounded metaphysical and ethical beliefs unto arrangements of sound, painted landscapes, and ficticious stories and you'll learn to appreciate them by the experience they provide and nothing more (since that's all they really are).

>> No.6045150

>>6045119
Welcome to postmootism.

>> No.6045151
File: 199 KB, 800x311, 1145.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045151

>>6043383

>> No.6045165

>>6045151
L O N D O N
O
N
D
O
N

>> No.6045171

>>6045148
>Because for some reason people in the 21st Century still like to hold on to arbitrary categories such as "art", "good", "bad", etc.

I fucking HATE how people equate "art" with "good".

I always use the example of pizza to explain how dumb this line of thinking is:

Good pizza is pizza; bad pizza is pizza. Pizza is pizza: it's not a value-judgment. Yet, some people think when they call something art they mean it as a value-judgment.

>> No.6045172

>>6045151

Art <3

>> No.6045174

>>6045050
Back to tumblr, tripfag.

>> No.6045177

>>6045171

I refered to "art" and "good" as seperate examples of arbitrary categories.

>> No.6045178

>>6044985
>implying this is a logical position

>> No.6045180

>>6045148
>There's absolutely no reason why farting or eating hotdogs can't be art except tradition.
art is simulacra
if everything is art then the term loses it's purpose and you could replace it with the term "universe"
>and you'll learn to appreciate them by the experience they provide and nothing more (since that's all they really are).
true, but farting and eating hotdogs and hack art provide a inferior experience to everyone who's not a giant fucking plebeian moron

>> No.6045184

>>6045180
>if everything is art then the term loses it's purpose and you could replace it with the term "universe"

this

we should use the real definition of art: "things I like"

>> No.6045189

>>6045180
>art is simulacra
No, art is an ancient concept with multiple definitions, not just the one you like the most.
>if everything is art then the term loses it's purpose
Which is? The closest universal definition of art is "things made by man".
>and you could replace it with the term "universe"
Or drop the term all together since it's -a arbitrary category.

>farting and eating hotdogs and hack art provide a inferior experience to everyone who's not a giant fucking plebeian moron
If the greeks celebrated farting and eating hotdogs you wouldn't say this. The only reason playing the violin is considered art and farts aren't is tradition.

>> No.6045196
File: 7 KB, 250x250, 1421869569332.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045196

It's pretty hilarious watching the jews in this thread come up with beyond retarded arguments defending modern/post-modern non-art garbage.

It's like you don't even live in the real world. And even after you're revealed to be an absolute fraud, tomorrow you'll use all the same arguments all over again to defend the wanton degradation of art.

Fucken kikes.

>> No.6045202

>>6045196

Please stay in your containment board. Talk about "real art" there if you dislike "nonart" so much.

>> No.6045205

>>6045189
>Or drop the term all together since it's -a arbitrary category.
all categories are arbitrary and subjective, fuckwit

>> No.6045213

>>6045205

Exactly, so being saddlesore that there are people with different interpretations of it is retarded. Like you and this fag >>6045196

>> No.6045214

>>6045196
>It's like you don't even live in the real world.
So says mister Jews Everywhere! If you lived in the real world rather than the huge degenerate conspiracy bubble you would know there are multiple responses to 20th/21st century art. Lots of people like what you hate, and it's not just a bunch of jews deluding everyone trying to sell canned shit.

>> No.6045216

>>6045202
>Talk about "real art" there
I do, all the fucken time. Painting dumps are a regular over there.

/pol/ is infinitely more cultured, intelligent, and imaginative than /lit/.

Everybody knows it.

>> No.6045221

>>6045216
then why are you here shitting your diaper

>> No.6045222

>>6045216

Then why are you here?

>> No.6045227

>>6045213
Just because everything is subjective doesn't mean that prayer is on the same level as gene therapy or that star trek is on the same level as quantum mechanics, or that everyones definition of art is equally valid.

>> No.6045231

>>6043358
This guy presents no arguments as to why the paintings of old are better than Virgin Mary in cow shit or a policewoman pissing. He seems to take for granted that just because they involve human orifices that it's bad and everyone will automatically agree.

Pretty lazy video. Or, he just knows he can't "objectively" state why because it's made in cow shit that it's bad.

>> No.6045246

>>6045227
>Just because everything is subjective doesn't mean that prayer is on the same level as gene therapy or that star trek is on the same level as quantum mechanics
Levels? Of what?

>or that everyones definition of art is equally valid.
All definitions are invalid since art isn't a real thing. It's a category. What you categorize as art is up to your cultural background, and experience. If you consider farting art it's as 'valid' as anything. Validity is just a spook you're using to validate your own taste. Serious stop being so spooky.

>> No.6045247

>>6045221
>>6045222
99.9% of you are gay faggot /mu/ twigbois et philosophy majors.

The rest are scottish assholes who bant.

I come here to intellectually bully idiots, and put them into their place.

>> No.6045250

>>6045247
that's pretty euphoric man, but if it makes you happy

>> No.6045251

>>6045247
Sad loser.

>> No.6045255

>>6045247

Well, you sound mad. Maybe you should change your approach if you really want to bully anyone.

>> No.6045265

>>6045065
This folder is shit. I feel bad that you would save all these.

>> No.6045271

>>6045265
ur mum lulz

>> No.6045276
File: 51 KB, 803x688, 1420569970114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045276

>>6045250
>>6045251
>>6045255
haha you're jealousy and hate only makes me win harder.

t.heil hitler

>> No.6045278

>>6045276

Ayy

>> No.6045279

>>6045276
Go read a book idiot

>> No.6045282

>>6045276
>t.
Do you even know what that is?

>> No.6045285

>>6045271
Epic reply m8

>> No.6045297

>>6045246
>Levels? Of what?
Usefulness. And the purpose to which you use the model of quantum mechanics, and all other categories, is to UNDERSTAND THE WORLD. The theory of QM is NOT RIGHT, but it IS BETTER AT PREDICTING OUTCOMES than the model of Aether or whatever outdated scientific theory.
>All definitions are invalid since art isn't a real thing. It's a category. What you categorize as art is up to your cultural background, and experience. If you consider farting art it's as 'valid' as anything. Validity is just a spook you're using to validate your own taste. Serious stop being so spooky.
Put down the joint, i have a revolutionary proposal. What if you realize the truth of the matter, that nothing is objective and that all models and categories are by necessity false abstractions, but ALSO realize that categories and models and abstractions are useful tools without you would not be able to understand a SINGLE FUCKING THING.

>> No.6045303

>>6045282

regards.

terveiset, t.master

>> No.6045304

>>6043358
How come he fails to mention that one of the big pushes from classical standards to what he sees as modern art was the advent of photography?
Not saying that a painters rendering of a landscape or subject cannot be held superior to a photograph; but, many modern artists seemed to feel that trying to render the nuances of reality was pointless when one could merely take a picture.
This guy also fails to mention that artists who still adhere to classical standards have never gone anywhere, and that such standards are still being taught in, at least American, high schools and colleges.

>> No.6045345

>>6045297

>Usefulness.
How is QM more useful than Star Trek if I want to watch TV?
>And the purpose to which you use the model of quantum mechanics, and all other categories, is to UNDERSTAND THE WORLD. The theory of QM is NOT RIGHT, but it IS BETTER AT PREDICTING OUTCOMES than the model of Aether or whatever outdated scientific theory.
Star Trek isn't a scientific theory. It's a entertainment franchise.

>What if you realize the truth of the matter, that nothing is objective and that all models and categories are by necessity false abstractions, but ALSO realize that categories and models and abstractions are useful tools without you would not be able to understand a SINGLE FUCKING THING.
How is the concept art useful? Scientific categories are helpful because they're concrete and consistent. Art doesn't. What is the concept of art useful for? You can still play music, write books and paint without the concept of art.

>> No.6045369

>>6045345
>How is QM more useful than Star Trek if I want to watch TV?
It's useful for understanding the world, I just fucking said that you retarded little faggot.
>How is the concept art useful? Scientific categories are helpful because they're concrete and consistent. Art doesn't. What is the concept of art useful for?
Because defining art lets you understand art, and if you understand art it will be easier to make, find and enjoy good art.
>You can still play music, write books and paint without the concept of art.
And judging by the art made by the "anything can be art" or the "art is whatever I say it to be" or "art is about THE MESSAGE" crowds or the other categories of ignorant hipsters you do a pretty fucking poor job of it.
>but I like diamond skulls and literal piles of garbage
Yes, but you're a fucking moron and on top of that fooling yourself, and we give as much shits about art that morons like as we do about art that chimps and lobsters like, i.e NONE.

>> No.6045396

>>6045369
>It's useful for understanding the world, I just fucking said that you retarded little fagg
So? I can't watch QM because it's not a tv show. Usefulness is defined by the circumstance. Understanding was never the purpose of Star Trek so obv QM will be more useful towarda that end. Yet completely useless for entertainment.

>Because defining art lets you understand art, and if you understand art it will be easier to make, find and enjoy good art.
No shit sherlock. Defining a made up category helps you understand said made up category. Defining astrology also helps understand astrology so I suppose astrology is objectively a useful category since, according to you, the purpose of categories is to understand them (circular reasoning much).

>And judging by the art made by the "anything can be art" or the "art is whatever I say it to be" or "art is about THE MESSAGE" crowds or the other categories of ignorant hipsters you do a pretty fucking poor job of it.
But who's judging? You? So what you say is poor art is the end all? Egomaniac.

>Yes, but you're a fucking moron and on top of that fooling yourself,
I'm not the one getting butthurt because people disagree with my subjective deontological beliefs.
>and we give as much shits about art that morons like as we do about art that chimps and lobsters like, i.e NONE.

>we

>> No.6045402

>>6045177
I know; I was just commenting on how some people equate the two. I didn't accuse you of doing it.

>> No.6045403
File: 740 KB, 2045x2880, v2M9WYr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045403

lol you losers will argue about the stupidest shit ever lol

It's like, arguing for the sake of arguing--like, it doesn't matter what's literally being argued about, what matters is that both sides are infinitely engaged in a battle of egos or something.

>> No.6045420

>>6045403
>implying debates about aesthetics aren't important
Why are you even on this board?

>> No.6045425

>>6045420

How are they important?

>> No.6045433

>>6045425
If we had no advancement of aesthetics all we would have would be the same old classicist styles, that provided nothing new, and alienates humans from art.

>> No.6045438

>>6045420
>Why are you even on this board?

Mom said I could have the computer for an hour. I checked my e-mail already (no new mail) so I have the rest of the time for /lit/.

>> No.6045458

>>6045433
False dilemma.

>> No.6045471

Realism is an easy schelling point from which to evaluate art.

Eventually realism got boring for some, and those people started paying greater attention to other facets of artworks.

Other people got mad, and now we're here.

>>6044997
Get out of here with your thorn bullshit, retard.

>> No.6045477

>>6045433

BS. Advancements in aesthetics would occur with or without discussions in aesthetics.

>> No.6045493

>>6045396
>So? I can't watch QM because it's not a tv show. Usefulness is defined by the circumstance. Understanding was never the purpose of Star Trek so obv QM will be more useful towarda that end. Yet completely useless for entertainment.
drop the fucking star trek and tv shit when i already explained what the purpose of categories was
>Defining a made up category helps you understand said made up category.
All categories are made up. "You" is also made up. What the purpose then of defining art is to understand a part of the universe. The definition of art as simulacra is just the most useful definition.
>But who's judging? You? So what you say is poor art is the end all? Egomaniac.
What the fuck is with the "end of all" garbage when we've repeatedly went over the non-existence of objectivity? And using egomaniac as an insult when you just used stirnerian concepts like "spook" is rich.
>I'm not the one getting butthurt because people disagree with my subjective deontological beliefs.
I'm "butthurt", if you can call it that, because people like you continuously spew poisonous debris from your mouth and fingers and ruin everything you touch. It's no difference from if you were a mongol pillager, absolutely none at all, except in the method of execution. You don't kill him because he's "wrong", you kill him because he's an obstacle to YOURSELF. My purpose here is not to "prove you wrong", it is to show everyone what an utterly ridiculous position you hold so they adapt my position, or something closer to it, instead. That and having fun.

>>we
Yes, everyone who's not retarded.

>> No.6045502

>>6045231
>Or, he just knows he can't "objectively" state why because it's made in cow shit that it's bad

Lmfao. Kill yourself, you wishy-washy, brainwashed idiot. If you ended your own life the world would tangibly improve

>> No.6045507

>>6045477
So they would just fall out of the sky?

>> No.6045517

>>6044997
>the jewish, the low classes, the mediocre, and the hipsters.
What's a four-way oxymoron called?

>> No.6045533

>>6045119

/pol/ broke and they all escaped or something. You get this kind of retarded stormfront half-thought everywhere recently.

Now moot is kill it will get worse still, I guarantee it.

>> No.6045556
File: 123 KB, 774x1032, modern_art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045556

What the fuck is this shit it doesn't look like any woman I ever saw fucking abstract modern fucking jewish garbage i bet why can't they paint a nice picture of a lady and stop fucking about i don't even

>> No.6045570

>>6045493
>drop the fucking star trek and tv shit when i already explained what the purpose of categories was

No, you said QM and ST aren't on the same level. Yet you completely bullshited when I asked what level. You said QM is more useful to understand the universe as if this was the only thing with which to define usefulness.

>All categories are made up. "You" is also made up. What the purpose then of defining art is to understand a part of the universe. The definition of art as simulacra is just the most useful definition.
No, the categories between gender are very real. The categories between the living and dead is real as well. Art is made up, it's not founded on logic, or nature. It's based on tradition and even religious purposes. Plus the most used definition of art is "expressive mediums made by man".

>I'm "butthurt", if you can call it that, because people like you continuously spew poisonous debris from your mouth and fingers and ruin everything you touch. It's no difference from if you were a mongol pillager, absolutely none at all, except in the method of execution. You don't kill him because he's "wrong", you kill him because he's an obstacle to YOURSELF. My purpose here is not to "prove you wrong", it is to show everyone what an utterly ridiculous position you hold so they adapt my position, or something closer to it, instead. That and having fun.
You sound like a deluded christfag. You basically just said you're on a righteous mission to uphold "good art", which btw is basically just "what I like".

>everyone who's not retarded
aka, people who agree with my beliefs.

>> No.6045580

>>6045556
That's not modern art you retard, it's a figure made about 35,000 years ago of a pregnant women and modern fat women use it to justify being fat and claim that being fat is attractive

>> No.6045584

>>6045556
>doesn't look like any woman I ever saw fu
>isnt high test

>> No.6045599

>>6045580
You are the reason people bait this board to death, retard

>> No.6045605

>>6045580
if this is not troll, I give up on /lit/

>> No.6045624

What's a good starting point if I wanted to get into the history of aesthetic theory, /lit/?

>> No.6045630

The greeks

>> No.6045638

>>6045624
You'll understand aesthetics and metaphysics much better if you read On the Genealogy of Morals first.

>> No.6045644

They are goblin people who hate freedom. They also think there is one Art World. They are apologists for Capitalism, which they understand as the atomized man extracting value from nature. This is not a contradiction.

>> No.6045692

>>6045570
Star trek was just one example of something which is blatantly wrong compared to a proper theory like QM, I agree that it was a shitty example but you shouldn't be so stupid as to get caught on it for this long, especially since I then used another example, being the theory of Aether.
>You said QM is more useful to understand the universe as if this was the only thing with which to define usefulness.
I have never defined usefulness, I defined the usefulness of CONCEPTS. A useful CONCEPT lets you understand reality better, like how QM allows you to predict the reactions of miniscule particles.
>The categories between the living and dead is real as well.
>Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits:(...)
quote wikipedia

So what's the difference between defining art as something that is X, Y and Z and defining life as something(like you can draw clear lines between physical objects) which has traits like homeostasis(my fridge), being composed of cells(a dead human), metabolism(my car), response to stimuli(my computer), reproduction(a virus)? Because one is based on the physical and one on the mental? But the mental is just a part of the physical, so my emotions are just as real as my dick. The solution is that there is no such thing as a distinction between "real" and "unreal" categories.
>Plus the most used definition of art is "expressive mediums made by man".
A medium cannot be expressive, a medium has nothing to express, it is the ARTIST which expresses something, and just as the medium isn't expressive the medium isn't art either, art is CARRIED through a medium, like i need a fucking tv and a roll of film to watch the fucking movie. And "made by man" means that things like rock paintings are out as art, or if you define "made by man" as something which is shaped by man, then your definition means that AIR is art because I shape air to express my pain when I stub my toe.
>You sound like a deluded christfag. You basically just said you're on a righteous mission to uphold "good art", which btw is basically just "what I like".
I'm on a egoist mission to uphold art that I like, yes. My opinions are just much more well-founded than yours.

>> No.6045713

>>6043383
Stop being reactionary Butterfly.

>> No.6045716

>>6043358
This is trolling, right?

>> No.6045722

>>6043354
Most people don't mind non-realist art in general. What they have a problem with is it completely strangling contemporary and near contemporary art. So if they ever want to go see some contemporary art, it's pretty much all weird garbage and that's off putting.

Fwiw i like abstract art, but I do have a problem with people just rehashing
> ceci n'est pas unr pipe
> le toilet can be art, too!
> It's just purely a painting, why does it need a subject?!

And then when I say it's boring and stupid everyone falls all over themselves to tell me it's a meta commentary on art itself. It's not 1955 anymore. A lot of that stuff is boring trash.

>> No.6045734

>>6045716
Praeger university never trolls

they truly stand by their beliefs

being: FUCKING COMMIES

>> No.6045780

>>6045692
>Star trek was just one example of something which is blatantly wrong compared to a proper theory like QM,
How? How is ST "wrong" compared to QM? One is a tv show, the other is a scientific theory. QM is not objectively more useful than ST. That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying gun is more useful than a pig. You can't eat a gun. Yet a pig doesn't protect from assaulters.

>So what's the difference between defining art as something that is X, Y and Z and defining life as something(like you can draw clear lines between physical objects) which has traits like homeostasis(my fridge), being composed of cells(a dead human), metabolism(my car), response to stimuli(my computer), reproduction(a virus)? Because one is based on the physical and one on the mental? But the mental is just a part of the physical, so my emotions are just as real as my dick. The solution is that there is no such thing as a distinction between "real" and "unreal" categories.

Your fridge, your car, your computer and a dead human aren't alive, anon. Life = organic matter that can reproduce, grow, change and respond to stimuli. Non of your examples exhibit all of these traits.
Art has many definitions, non of which are concrete. And there have existed many cultures without the concept of art as we do today. It's baseless category.

>A medium cannot be expressive, a medium has nothing to express, it is the ARTIST which expresses something, and just as the medium isn't expressive
are you deliberately being a retard
>the medium isn't art either, art is CARRIED through a medium,
So, according to you Duchamp was right about everything and a toilet found on the streets is as valid art as Beethoven's ninth?
And "made by man" means that things like rock paintings are out as art
Why? Arr you saying man didn't paint those paintings?
or if you define "made by man" as something which is shaped by man,
you know very that it doesn't. Besides im not defending that definition since I don't stand by any definition of art. Im only saying that art as simulacra is not widely used except the most pretentious of people.

>My opinions are just much more well-founded than yours.
Founded on what? Your feelings? then sure. Unlike you, I let reason dictate my opinions.

>> No.6045857

>>6045780
>Your fridge, your car, your computer and a dead human aren't alive, anon. Life = organic matter that can reproduce, grow, change and respond to stimuli.
A carbon chain could be matter by that definition. It can reproduce by splitting, it can grow by having carbon atoms add to the chain, and it can (naturally) change because there is nothing that is unchangeable. And life responding to stimuli is just a circular definition, because response to stimuli is a function of physiological systems, that is to say, alive systems.
>Non of your examples exhibit all of these traits.
Neither do sterile people.
>Art has many definitions, non of which are concrete.
Concrete, lol. How is the definition of art as simulacra not concrete?
>And there have existed many cultures without the concept of art as we do today. It's baseless category.
There have been many cultures without the concept of atoms too, but I doubt your materia-worshipping self would consider it a baseless category.
>are you deliberately being a retard
Canvas and paint is expressive now? Tell me, what is the canvas trying to say to me?
>So, according to you Duchamp was right about everything and a toilet found on the streets is as valid art as Beethoven's ninth?
Only the most fevered mind can get that a toilet is valid art from "art is not the marble block from which you cut the statue".
>Why? Arr you saying man didn't paint those paintings?
No, man didn't create the medium. THE MEDIUM BEING THE FUCKING ROCK WALL AND PIG BLOOD THAT THE PRIMEVIAL ARTISTS USED TO PAINT ON AND WITH.
>Im only saying that art as simulacra is not widely used except the most pretentious of people.
Might the reason why it's not widely used be because most people are stupid?
>Unlike you, I let reason dictate my opinions.
No lol, nobody does. Your feelings dictate your opinions, logic is used to support them. Try to reason why you like the color blue.

>> No.6045892

>>6045857
>A carbon chain could be matter by that definition. It can reproduce by splitting, it can grow by having carbon atoms add to the chain, and it can (naturally) change because there is nothing that is unchangeable. And life responding to stimuli is just a circular definition, because response to stimuli is a function of physiological systems, that is to say, alive systems.
Maybe you're clinically retarded, but even a cockroach can tell when another cockroach is alive and when it's not. Maybe you're just stupider than a cockroach.

>How is the definition of art as simulacra not concrete?
Because that definition can meab about anything.

>Only the most fevered mind can get that a toilet is valid art
Why? Is the toilet not simulacra? Does it not represent the mundanity of life?

>No, man didn't create the medium. THE MEDIUM BEING THE FUCKING ROCK WALL AND PIG BLOOD THAT THE PRIMEVIAL ARTISTS USED TO PAINT ON AND WITH.
Of course, the medium is the painting you idiot.

>Might the reason why it's not widely used be because most people are stupid?Might the reason why it's not widely used be because most people are stupid?
>"might the reason that most people can' see the invisible pink unicorn in my living room be because most people are stupid?"
gee, anon, maybe.

>Try to reason why you like the color blue.
liking something is not an opinion.

>> No.6045906

>>6044987
banksy is trash anyway. those advertisers are making our best 21st century art and muh corporations doesn't really change that

>> No.6045914

>>6044990
you musn't like a lot of art then. this is a pleb view

>> No.6045919

>>6044997
>systematically

did you just throw this word in to pad out your sentence?

>> No.6045922
File: 8 KB, 351x258, Venus-of-Schelklingen[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6045922

>>6045580
>modern fat women use it to justify being fat and claim that being fat is attractive

How would it even justify that

>> No.6045928

>>6043354
those people don't understand that the museum is garbage and those artists are waging a war against it

>> No.6045930

>>6045892
>Maybe you're clinically retarded, but even a cockroach can tell when another cockroach is alive and when it's not. Maybe you're just stupider than a cockroach.
>i.e I cannot face you with arguments so I'll just defer back to "common sense"
Concession accepted, lol
>Why? Is the toilet not simulacra? Does it not represent the mundanity of life?
The toilet is a toilet. The novel is a simulation(or representation) of events, the painting is a representation of a visual object or objects, the music is a simulation of feelings(that's why there even is such a thing as scary music), and the video game is a simulation of the world.
>Of course, the medium is the painting you idiot.
No, the medium is the materials with which you make the painting, canvas and paint. Thats why you can say that two different art works use the same medium while still being different.
>liking something is not an opinion.
cool, so what is an opinion then

objective fact?

>> No.6045935

>>6045928
So, you are telling me that they are ironically being shit artists ?

>> No.6045951

>>6045930
>The toilet is a toilet. The novel is a simulation(or representation) of events, the painting is a representation of a visual object or objects, the music is a simulation of feelings(that's why there even is such a thing as scary music), and the video game is a simulation of the world.
Is the mundanity of life not a feeling?

>medium is the materials with which you make the painting
By definition, a medium is a means to communicate or express something. Painting is a medium, music is a medium, writing is a medium.

>what is an opinion then
A proposition not based in fact.
"I like blue" is not an opinion, it's a preference.
"Blue is the best color" is a opinion.

>> No.6045959

>>6045935
no i wouldn't say they're being ironic or shit

>> No.6045960

>>6045935

No I think he's trying to say that they're challenging shit thinkers like you who believe that the museum and the canon are the repository of artistic excellence, rather than the butcher's shop and charnel house of art they actually are.

>> No.6045982

>>6043358
>I was born in le wrong century

>> No.6046000

>>6045951
>Is the mundanity of life not a feeling?
Sure. The toilet is a toilet though.
>By definition, a medium is a means to communicate or express something. Painting is a medium, music is a medium, writing is a medium.
Painting, music and writing are art forms, not media.

>> No.6046011

>>6046000
>Sure. The toilet is a toilet though.

A song is a song, a painting is a painting and a story is a story. What makes them art as opposed to the toilet?

>Painting, music and writing are art forms, not media.
they're mediums of expression.

>> No.6046018

>>6043358
>"an art gallery is a business. If the product doesn't sell, it won't be made"

is this nigga for real

>> No.6046044

>>6046011
they're simulacra

the toilet is not, it is an object
>they're mediums of expression.
they aren't
they're art forms

the medium is what you use to communicate the artwork to someone, i.e to allow them to view it
if i take a scan of a painting the painting is now on electronic media, it's still a painting

>> No.6046068

Contemporary/modern/PoMo art over-intellectualises art through semantics to try to give it some footing in the academic world and to convince potential buyers that it is a meaningful purchase.

Why must the definition of art change? Because you suck at making art you must change it for everybody else so you can call your urinal or farts or whatever an artwork? Art has a wide enough definition already it doesn't need to encompass every other field of study. You like TV? that TV is art. You like dogs? That dog is art. You hate AIDS? AIDS is art.

You defenders of non-realist art probably listen to John Cage's 4:33 and pretend you're deriving meaningful experiences from it.

"Oh wow that suprematist painting sure gives me the feels! I can totally relate to the human-centered narrative. My mirror neurons are firing wildly!"

>> No.6046082

>>6045517
Right? That's about everyone

>> No.6046083

>>6043354
People just want instant easy consumption

>> No.6046089

>>6046044

No, it's simulacra.

>media = medium
Buy a dictionary or at least use google.

>> No.6046092

>>6046068

alright then what is the definition of art

>> No.6046101

>>6046068
>Why must the definition of art change?

it used to be seen as a craft you know

>the definition isn't allowed to change

even though the material world does. interesting

>> No.6046119

>>6044997
despite (or perhaps because of) their wrongness, fascist paranoiac conspiracies are always quite beautiful

>> No.6046168

>>6046092
closest to what I agree with:

>A visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination.

The expression of a lack of skill is not an expression of skill.
The expression of a blank canvas or a black circle on a canvas is hardly taxing on the artist's or the viewer's imagination.

>>6046101
The name changed but the content hasn't. Older art may have been considered craft and is now considered art, but the work itself hasn't changed. Perhaps the name change progressively encouraged a lack of skill because people like to feel like they belong even though that thing they are trying to belong to really isn't their thing.

I think some people are born natural artists (yeah, representational), while those born without that natural inclination who want to become artists because of the image it gives them changed what art is to be more inclusive for them.

It's not likely for you to see a special olympian participating in the standard olympics and winning because they changed or stretched the definition of elite athletic performance or winning in general.

>> No.6046195

>>6046168
so art is only visual? nigga you high

>expression of skill

so is there a sliding scale of skill that once you reach a certain point it's art and before that it's not art?

>> No.6046205

>>6046168
>The name changed but the content hasn't.

yeah exactly, so:

the mechanics of art don't rely on skill/non-skill; that is to say art can still 'work' whether it's classical, impressionist, modern

>I think some people are born natural artists

heh

i didn't know natural artistry secretly meant adhering to tradition

>> No.6046206
File: 102 KB, 333x446, Laughing_peasant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6046206

>>6046168
>visual
>failing on the second word

>> No.6046214

>>6046205
well maybe it does rely on skill/non-skill but what you see as lack of skill because it isn't figurative doesn't mean there is a lack of skill. skill comes through translation to medium, not mimetic competence

>> No.6046234

>>6043358
hes right tho

except for francis bacon

>> No.6046248

>>6046234

>He's right, though. Except for one allowance that would nullify his entire position.

Why am I not surprised that people like you would agree with him.

>> No.6046254

>>6046195
>>6046206
Sound art is a type of music.
Performance art is a type of drama.
No need to confuse them.
If you're deaf you can't appreciate music because music isn't visual.
If you're blind you can't appreciate art because art is visual. It's very rarely tactile because what artist would want the audience touching their precious, money-generating urinal?

>>6046205
There's a difference between an piece "working" and people pretending it's "working" because the artist/some critic churned out some convoluted description to justify their mediocre piece.

>adhering to tradition
We're all natural minimalists :) Isn't inclusion nice! Everyone's an artist! Even my dog! Why? Because I/some theorist said so. Let's follow the "authority" of whoever is fearfully following the latest trends.

>> No.6046260

ITT nothing but spooks

>> No.6046272

>>6043358
>let's celebrate what we know is good, and ignore what we know is not

my gott, pure ideology

>> No.6046273

>>6046254
>There's a difference between an piece "working" and people pretending it's "working" because the artist/some critic churned out some convoluted description to justify their mediocre piece.

there's a difference between a piece not working and people pretending it's not working because they have decided that if it's not figurative then it's not art, and have created some convoluted explanation as to why their art doesn't work, based on cherry-picked examples, missing the point, exaggerating to extremes, or going against the 'mainstream' in order to establish an insecure identity of intellectualism (i.e. these artists get money but i'm smarter than them)

come on man stop being such a shithead. come up with your own opinions

>> No.6046290
File: 14 KB, 300x358, Schopenhauer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6046290

What a bunch of autists.

Situation 1:

Person 1 and Person 2 are looking at a piece.

Person 1 says "I believe this is art."
Person 2 says "I do not believe this is art."

They are both correct.

Situation 2:

Person 1 and Person 2 are looking at a piece.

Person 1 says "This is art."
Person 2 says "This is not art."

They are both wrong.

>> No.6046294
File: 24 KB, 412x516, 1975107_10152063409177297_1372229598552733990_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6046294

>>6046018
>"an art gallery is a business. If the product doesn't sell, it won't be made"

>> No.6046296

>>6046290
this

>> No.6046299

>>6046290

>What a bunch of autists.

He says whilst trying to say something as simple as "it's subjective" in perhaps the most autistic way this thread has yet seen.

>> No.6046305

>>6046299
No, you did not understand.

Read it again.

>> No.6046322

>>6046273
>come on man stop being such a shithead. come up with your own opinions
>their opinion differs from mine so they must be blindly following someone else!

I could say the same about you.

>if it's not figurative then it's not art
This I believe, not figurative but realist.

>cherry-picked examples
I couldn't possibly argue against the merits of every non-representational piece ever made individually, but I can group them by a common element and pick salient examples to illustrate a point.

>missing the point
Of what? Non-representational art? I don't see the point of it.

>exaggerating to extremes
The artistic landscape supposedly "grows" or "expands" due to the presence of such extreme examples. These extremes push the definition of art (albeit needlessly, there's still plenty of area to explore within the boundaries of art's definition).

>going against the mainstream
So you admit to following the mainstream because it's the mainstream? I'm not against it for being mainstream, I'd dislike it just as much if it were a fringe area.

>in order to establish an insecure identity of intellectualism (i.e. these artists get money but i'm smarter than them)

I never said I was smarter than them, just that I disagree with them. It's the non-representationalists who rely on intellectualising art to justify their insecure identities about their skill, e.g. "that blob of paint truly exemplifies the plight of X through the transcendental formless yadda yadda".

>> No.6046359

>>6046322
>I could say the same about you.

you could but you'd be wrong. i've actually done research into what art is, whereas you're just hating on what you perceive modernism to be (blank canvases, et al. -- seriously just no)

>This I believe, not figurative but realist.

based on what? how you think modern art production works?

>but I can group them by a common element and pick salient examples to illustrate a point.

a common element of modern art? wow please tell me what it is. even benjamin was wrong when he said modern art was a kind of flattening. i doubt you've boiled over 100 years of art down to its purest essence

>I don't see the point of it.

that is to say you're missing the point of it, and you're avoiding any explanation of it

>supposedly

what?

>These extremes push the definition of art (albeit needlessly, there's still plenty of area to explore within the boundaries of art's definition).

can you support this with any evidence?

>So you admit to following the mainstream because it's the mainstream?

saying "you don't understand what you're arguing against" isn't following the mainstream, no. i probably like your favourite work of art

>I never said

i never said you outright said it either

>It's the non-representationalists who rely on intellectualising art

dude, art has been intellectualised since the renaissance

> "that blob of paint truly exemplifies the plight of X through the transcendental formless yadda yadda".

no art critic says or believes this kind of shit. this is just your misreading and failing to grasp points

>> No.6046441

>>6046359

Looks like you've gotten quite angry.

>i've actually done research into what art is
Oh cool, an armchair philosopher.

>what you perceive modernism to be (blank canvases, et al. -- seriously just no)
Well then what is it? What handful of works would you use to exemplify it?

>based on what? how you think modern art production works?
I never isolated modernism but non-representationalism in general. Somebody comes up with an uninspired idea, but because they are first to do it they get recognition for it.

>a common element of modern art? wow please tell me what it is. even benjamin was wrong when he said modern art was a kind of flattening. i doubt you've boiled over 100 years of art down to its purest essence

Increasing levels abstraction for its own sake. There.

>that is to say you're missing the point of it, and you're avoiding any explanation of it
Not really avoiding any explanation of it, more that I find descriptions of non-representational art intolerable.

>can you support this with any evidence?
Evidence, no. A musical genre is hardly ever exhausted. There is always room for something within that genre to be new and exciting while still being adherent to what defines that genre. Breaking the genre's definition or boundaries for its own sake can yield something novel, but not always good.

>saying "you don't understand what you're arguing against" isn't following the mainstream, no.
You didn't really say that. You said I was going against the mainstream to establish an insecure identity of intellectualism. I said you're defending the mainstream for its own sake.

>dude, art has been intellectualised since the renaissance
There was actually substance to intellectualise during that time period.

>i probably like your favourite work of art
cool

>no art critic says or believes this kind of shit. this is just your misreading and failing to grasp points
I thought you said you studied what art is, you must have come across some pretentious descriptions of non-representational artworks. Have you been to art school? Have you never encountered artspeak?

>> No.6047891

>>6043358

kekke

>> No.6047969

is a massive war or some other era defining event needed to reinvigorate current art standards and usher a new wave of aesthetics?

>> No.6048165

>>6046441
>Looks like you've gotten quite angry.

lol?

>Oh cool, an armchair philosopher.

lol? i study it

>What handful of works would you use to exemplify it?

i wouldn't use a handful of works to exemplify it. regardless, your attempt to exemplify it with one or two works is total horse shit. let's not forget that

>an uninspired idea

qualify this

>Increasing levels abstraction for its own sake.

it's not for it's own sake though. there were lots of reasons for abstraction, like with kandinsky or mondrian

>more that I find descriptions of non-representational art intolerable.

i've bet you've read literally 0. even if you have you refuse to engage with it

>A musical genre is hardly ever exhausted. There is always ...

you didn't answer my question

>I said you're defending the mainstream for its own sake.

because i said you're arguing against the mainstream? please

>There was actually substance to intellectualise during that time period.

and there still is now. you just haven't read it

>I thought you said you studied what art is

yeah and i've read critics, so i know when you're just talking shit about art, which you are doing. show me one critic saying something pretentious about non-representational artwork?

>> No.6048185
File: 2.35 MB, 2184x1456, jeppe-hein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6048185

>You call this 'art'? That's not fuckin' art, I don't know what the fuck it is, but it ain't fuckin' art! Art is a painting or a sculpture, that's REAL art, none of this fuckin' degenerate, modern, BULLSHEET!

>> No.6048196

Can someone explain minimalist sculpture to me?
I just find it so enigmatic that you would apply that principle in that medium, I don't understand the motivation or what it's expressing.

For just about literally every minimalist sculpture.

>> No.6048212

>>6048196

When you look at a B-2 Bomber and marvel at it's design and engineering, "minimalist sculpture" looks comparatively dumb.

>> No.6048250

new art installation:

i drive you to the sonoran desert and you gotta get back to US soil

>> No.6049553

>>6043354
Because deconstruction and critical theory has rendered the thinking behind modern art so stupidly complex that the average plebian can't handle anything that isn't in some sense evocative of reality

It's a shame too, because once you understand just how modern theory works, it does help in appreciating the more abstract or difficult pieces

>> No.6049564

>>6049553
Give an example of this.

>> No.6049566

>>6048212
Maybe if you're /pol/io.

>> No.6049575

>>6043354
Because they're dumb plebs, mate.

>> No.6049582

>>6049566
>le back to /pol/ meme

Reminder that moot called you a fucking retard in his last Q&A and thinks you are cancer.

>> No.6049583

>>6045276
it was kc tier and it was on 4chan

>> No.6049826

>>6043354
because its stupid

>> No.6049843

>>6049582
But you called someone a /pol/ist baboon right here: >>6045041

>> No.6050001

>>6049843
I'm special.

>> No.6050023

>>6049582
moot is cancer and ruined pol

>> No.6050214

>>6049843
He is putting on my name to fuck with me. He's a pol-ist.
>>6050001
Like special educations kid.
>>6050023
Pol-ists ruined pol. It was a news board and these ass-hats came to roost and then proceeded to ruin every other board.

>> No.6050218

Shit.
Meant to sage that.

>> No.6050225

>>6044927
>find a new word
>autists

>> No.6050229

>>6043358
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager

>> No.6050394

>>6045458
False assumption.

>> No.6050601

>>6045276
Your *

>> No.6050669

>>6050218
bump to get this noticed

>> No.6050730

>>6045345
>Star Trek isn't a scientific theory. It's a entertainment franchise

One would assume that someone who understand this simple concept would understand that "farting isn't art, it's a bodily action" but I guess you're mentally challenged or very deep into your own ideologic ass.

>> No.6050818

>>6045477
the practice of aesthetics is itself a discussion of aesthetics. We are drawn to the new, the unorthodox, the bleeding-edge: if there was no verbal conversation there would still be an artistic one.

>> No.6050882

>/pol/ in charge of talking about art

>> No.6050932

>>6050669
Why? I admit to mistakes all the time.

>> No.6051627

>>6049553
I'm not educated in the visual arts enough to speak for them, but I can talk about modern literature. Frank O'Hara's poetry is a good example; if semantic theory renders the relationship between signified and signifier as arbitrary, then his spontaneous compositional style is not as self-indulgent as one might assume. He is taking his understanding of a specific signified from within the context of composition (eg, a particular 'tree' from one of his infamous poetic lunch breaks) and represents it in his poetry in the form of the signifier, its true signified meaning almost entirely unattainable to the reader due to the contextualisation of the signified in the moment of composition itself. These references are impenetrable, but intentionally so; it is the reader's own poetic consciousness which imbues them with the value necessary to create the emotional intensity present throughout so much of his work. However many readers lack any strong poetic vision, and the meaning is lost on them. Modern art is neither good or bad as it is entirely dependent on the person who experiences it; if it is interpreted as incomprehensible garbage, then it automatically takes that shape regardless of intention.

>> No.6051636

>>6051627
meant for
>>6049564

>> No.6052575

>>6043354
Because human instinct realizes that complexity > simplicity except when you're in fucking graphic design creating brand packaging, or when what you're simplifying is a method or toolset IN TURN used to more easily create complex works.

>> No.6052746

>>6043358
>Chevy Chase

>> No.6052760

>>6043358
HERE WE GOOO AGAIIINNN

>> No.6052765

>>6045012
And a lot of traditional art was just a mediocre place holder for photography.

>> No.6052961

>>6048196
That is the point. They are suppose to be non referential. Your question means you get it. They are suppose to look as if inspired by nothing and referring to nothing.
I must say though that they can be very beautiful and I personally relate to them a lot.

>> No.6052982

>>6051627
>Frank O'Hara's
Can you please explain with an example from one of his poems?

>> No.6052998

I love it how the people who are complaning about modern art and toilets as art pieces are so unaware that their actual complaining and outrage is exactly the response the artists was going for. XD
Them discussing and arguing what is art and what isnt (as a sign of their now shaken ideas about what is art and what isnt as a result of the peice) Is exactly the sort of discussion and realisation the artists hoped to sinpire.

You idiots are are proving that these works are worthy of attention!! and are definitely delivering a strong message and a deep thinking about what art really is...
I love this..

Its like watching a naive kid bringing up his naive counter points after one of his parents told him some complicated truth the kid has yet to think of.

>> No.6053013

>>6052998
But there is a difference between a pattern or subject matter the work brings with it rather than what you're describing. So for example there's a valid argument that talking about the interplay between colors and shapes in a Pollock piece or a Miro or something like The Bride Stripped Bare... offer more content to analyze within themselves than a ready-made. As you say, the whole point of the piece is an argument about categories, sure. But it doesn't change the fact that that's not really about any composition within the piece.

>> No.6053021

>>6043358
>yfw aesthetic standards are a quantified y axis

>> No.6053025

>>6053013
Perhaps but you can think of it is a sort of reflationary outcry. Each piece challenging the idea of what is art in different ways until we are forced to recognize that our definitions of art are a result of our own culture and history.
The value Of the pieces is the fact they make an important point, they achieve immense turmoil and conversations.
When you look at each of these pieces, sure, the all make the same point but they do it in different ways and they challenge our understanding of what is art in different ways.

>> No.6053031

>>6051627
>Frank O'Hara's poetry is a good example; if semantic theory renders the relationship between signified and signifier as arbitrary, then his spontaneous compositional style is not as self-indulgent as one might assume


What is bullshit?

>> No.6053033

>>6053025
But they don't. That response indicates that you don't know how to read a painting outside of talking about intent and historical reasons. The problem is that there's no close reading required for the Piss Christ or anything by Damien Hirsch. There's very little to discuss about the composition choices, colors, etc. and how it deals with the subject matter. Just focusing on the question of "what is art" isn't interesting.

>> No.6053060

>>6053033
First of all Piss Christ is not a painting..
Piss christ was not about that, its now way past that...
The notion that what art is is ambiguous has already been received.
What does the Idea of a Christ statute submerged in piss mean to you?Lets put aside that you think its outrage for the sake of outrage, that is what people think when they are not used to iconoclastic art..
Lets say that the artists intention was not to make statements about art but about something else. If we assume that what would the piece be about?

>> No.6053086

>>6043354
Like with everything, mainstream society take a long time to accept new ideas in painting photography, sculpturing etc...
The average person is by definition a pleb in everything, including the different forms of art.
In 100 years mainstream society will accept the ideas that still seem strange and controversial to them.
Like any field, the top echelons are inaccessible to people who have no clue.
It is like some bible basher trying to argue about physics and biology, daring to think his ignorant ass has any way of criticizing professionals in the field or, many times, even understanding what the professionals are talking about, or what language they aree using^^.

Honestly I would have expected people in /lit/ to already know all this.

>> No.6053156

>>6053086
>daring to think his ignorant ass has any way of criticizing professionals in the field
So people who make, like and "get" this shit art are "professionals" in the field and everyone who does not agree is a blind pleb regardless of their qualifications?

Well, that sure isn't self serving at all.

>> No.6053200

>>6053156
Yes, art is something that needs to be learned and experienced, you cant just come out of nowhere and be able to understand this complex interchange of ideas and artistic styles.

People who experienced paintings, got saturated by the different styles and movements, who learned about the different contexts and ideas behind it all have a clue.
How odd..
It is as if people have peen painting and creating "art" for thousands of years, influenced by their own time and its ideals and now, to understand it all, we must know of these things..Imagine that.

>> No.6053214

>>6053156
Maybe instead of mentally grimacing at art like bible bashers grimace at science and the scientific method you can just try to learn it and understand it.

>> No.6053229

>>6053200
>regardless of qualification
I'm sure it's easier to stawman and attack arguments I never made but pls save yourself the time if that's all you're gonna do.

Condemning art that references nothing but other art and loses all touch with reality in the process is not something exclusive to 4chan or dumb people.

>> No.6053307

>>6053229
Ok, keep on condemning whatever you want.
Its a matter of attitude really. Its easier to just denigrate something you dont understand than having to admit that you know little about it and that to know about it would take a lot of effort.

Looking and being interested in art can be analogues to drinking whine in the sense that it's just something you get into for some random reason and than, as a result, slowly start liking and understanding it.

Nobody needs to drink wine and taste a wide variety of wines.
How do you start? Why like it or care? I cant answer that, its just something to do, something to get interested in.
What sparks that initial interest in tasting a wine or learning about art? I dont know.

>> No.6053334

>>6053307
You are still assuming criticism comes from lack of understanding, or lack of desire to understand. It partially does, when it comes to me, but it is not always the case. And it is not always rooted in attachment to traditions either, to assume so and call everyone who disagrees a bible-bearing old man is ridiculous.

But that part about wine did actually change my mind, it reveals a great deal about the thought process behind the practice. It's still one that I cannot agree with (I'm old fashioned and think that if a work cannot ALSO stand alone on its own, it's a bad work) but I guess I can respect it a lot more. Thank you.

>> No.6053390

>>6053334
>>6053307
And to brush over a point I'm both underqualified to make and too tired to properly articulate,
>>6049553
Is the kind of stuff that annoys me (not the poster or the post but the facts stated.)
It's art that is unenjoyable. It's complicated but it is not (probably a bad example, here's hoping you'll forgive my sleep deprived brain) beautifully intricate like À la Recherche. It's not something that can be enjoyed regardless of the techniques, influences etc. It, in fact, can ONLY be enjoyed by that very point of view. It's art that references nothing but art.

But this
>How do you start? Why like it or care? I cant answer that, its just something to do, something to get interested in.
What sparks that initial interest in tasting a wine or learning about art? I dont know.
Implies a kind of posturing I can respect and was not one I considered before. I'll still hold my opinions, but I can see how it's a valid standpoint. A terrible, inprudent and pointless standpoint but a valid one nonetheless.

>> No.6054691

>>6053031
Read O'Hara before you dismiss my posts as bullshit.

>>6052982
I doubt I'd be able to make an appropriately sized and argued case for him in the space of a post or two, especially considering any textual evidence I could use is, in essence, 'coded'. If you have access to it, look up Ian Davidson's journal article 'Symbolism and Code in Frank O'Hara's Early Poems'

>> No.6054749

>>6043354
>non realist art
The term is, -non figurative- if you don't wanna come across as a pleb.

>> No.6055089

>>6043358
One of the comments is great as well:

>I am quite pleased and relieved after watching this 5 minutes video since I no longer feel guilty or ignorant for never understanding modern art

>> No.6055135

>>6043354
This does not apply to /lit/

vis
strawpoll.me/3465093

>> No.6055175

>>6055135
all those futurist bros

>> No.6055181

>>6055089
>I no longer feel guilty or ignorant for never understanding modern art

and there lies the answer to to this entire thread

>> No.6056298

>be a realist alive during the late 1800s
>all these moreaus, delvilles, redons

Modern art is dead

>> No.6056843

>>6043358
Oh god the tipping.

>> No.6057191
File: 25 KB, 550x401, 10891525_703875696376382_162409282765581294_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6057191

PhilPapers Survey among philosophy scholars from undergraduates to philosophy PhDs.

>Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?

Accept or lean toward: subjective 1349 / 3226 (41.8%)

Accept or lean toward: objective 1122 / 3226 (34.8%)

Other 755 / 3226 (23.4%)


God tier
>people with a coherent theory of aesthetics who can explain how a piece of art they like fits into it

Respectable tier
>people with no coherent theory of aesthetics who don't claim to know what constitutes art but will admit to liking something

Undergrad "I have strong opinions about various topics, debate me" tier
>people who say art is subjective
>people who say art is objective without actually elaborating a theory of aesthetics, instead relying on pointing at the Mona Lisa and TAMPON FART DILDO STILLBIRTH BUDDHA #37 and shouting "COME ON!" repeatedly, as if the objective quality of the former is self-evident from their emotional attachment to it and its cultural cache, thus provoking the subjectivist faggots to be transgressive-for-the-sake-of-transgressive even more and perpetuating the cycle of shit

Absolute retard tier
>people who think Jackson Pollock is an artist

>> No.6057207

>>6057191

and among PhDs only


Accept or lean toward: objective 730 / 1803 (40.5%)

Accept or lean toward: subjective 653 / 1803 (36.2%)

Other 420 / 1803 (23.3%)

>> No.6057224

Although I absolutely agree with your "tiers", your data seems incorrect.

http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP says
>Aesthetic value: objective 41.0%; subjective 34.5%; other 24.5%.

>> No.6057397

>>6057224

Well your data shows all respondents from target faculty, so my presumption would be that's a result of for all respondents associated with faculty of aesthetics. Data I've given shows all respondents without any filter applied. That being said I think your data has more credibility as in all respondents results there are probably many philosophers that never studied aesthetics and come from totally different area of scholarship.

>http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

here you can apply whatever filters you like

>> No.6057413

>>6057191
aesthetics is homo shit

>> No.6057440

>>6057413

no u

>> No.6057465

>>6043354
>non realist art
What exactly do you mean by this? Like more abstract stuff?