/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6045885]

ITT rate the best and worst artists (as in visual artists ever), and because of that /lit/ has not become /hum/ yet, use some good esthetic theoricians / art historians argument to prove your tastes are not shit.

[Anonymous No.6045893]

there are way too many visual artists, it's difficult to separate a lot of them, and not all art is based on aesthetics

you've already exposed yourself as a pleb

[Anonymous No.6045923]

Rothko and Pollack tied for worst imo

[Anonymous No.6045936]

>>6045893
>too many visual artists
Not too many, just many. I don't see how this is supposed to disable us to synthetize their production to appreciate it more or less.

>too many visual artists
This is why I added art history. But if you feel like anthropology of art, psychanalysis of art or your intuitions are relevant, feel free to go.

>you've already exposed yourself as a pleb
I really doubt so. And the fact you are on the defensive so much is actually exposing you more than the opposite.

[Anonymous No.6045953]

>>6045923
I agree with Pollock but I find Rothko pretty good. Loved what he's done for his chapel. If you have only seen reproductions of his works, they really need to be seen irl, especially if they show nothing.

[Anonymous No.6045971]

This fucking guy

[Anonymous No.6045993]

>>6045936
>Not too many, just many

do you mean canonical or overall? because based on your answer you're either a pleb or wrong

>This is why I added art history. But if you feel like anthropology of art, psychanalysis of art or your intuitions are relevant, feel free to go.

they don't 'rank' visual artists lmfao

> And the fact you are on the defensive so much is actually exposing you more than the opposite.

lol ok. i'll just take my art history degree out of the thread

[Anonymous No.6046059]

>>6045993
> i'll just take my art history degree out of the thread
how does it make your tastes relevant anyway?

>they don't 'rank' visual artists lmfao
indeed, and they don't go on 4chan either. so what?

>do you mean canonical or overall? because based on your answer you're either a pleb or wrong
I mean you could take your little tight ass to the museum where it belongs.

[Anonymous No.6046105]

>>6046059
>>6045971
God but the ass was fat

[Anonymous No.6046120]

>>6046105

[Anonymous No.6046140]

>>6045936
>supposed to disable us to synthetize their production to appreciate it more or less

really

[Anonymous No.6046154]

>>6046140
>doesn't want to admit Raphael is even more boring than Michelangelo
get some confidence anon

[Anonymous No.6046170]

>>6045885
Literally god-tier art coming through.

[Anonymous No.6046185]

>>6046170
>literally god-tier
That Apollo doesn't look so apollinian to me.

[Anonymous No.6046187]

>>6046170
>le Greeks Hellenismos may may
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.6046192]

>>6046185
Here's a better one though.

[Anonymous No.6046197]

>>6046154
You think Michelangelo's boring?

[Anonymous No.6046198]

>>6046187
I don't know what "Greek hellenismos may may" even is.

I'm just posting art I like.

[Anonymous No.6046199]

> Michelangelo was your age when he made this

[Anonymous No.6046200]

>>6045953
Completely agree anon. Pollock is a hack. Rothko is GOAT.

[Anonymous No.6046201]

>>6046192
Yeah, I know it already.
The hands are really nice but it doesn't move me.

[Anonymous No.6046202]

>>6046120
now thats nice

[Anonymous No.6046208]

>>6046197
>posts another random Pieta
>hey look at that masterpiece
>my neo-classicist face when

[Anonymous No.6046221]

>>6045971
Ingres wasn't anything but the little doggy of Napoléon and cie. Boring as fuck.

[Anonymous No.6046231]

>>6046208
>random pieta

aite

[Anonymous No.6046250]

>>6046201
>Rodin

Didn't know he was a photographer.

[Anonymous No.6046257]

>>6046250
What kind of joke is that?

[Anonymous No.6046261]

>>6046250

He wasn't, he was a painter. That's one of this very highly detailed oil paintings he did.

[Anonymous No.6046267]

>>6046261
He was actually.

[Anonymous No.6046280]

>>6046257
>he's coming out of the marble!

literally already done by michelangelo. 1800s literally the worst time for sculpture

[Anonymous No.6046292]

>>6046197
As boring as it may be, but nothing in this thread can touch this.

[Anonymous No.6046295]

>>6046280
Relief sculptures have literally been around since the stone age

[Anonymous No.6046298]

>>6046295
>thinks it's literally a relief

[Anonymous No.6046310]

>>6046298
Wait. Wait, what - it's not? Then what is it?

[Anonymous No.6046314]

>>6046310
not a relief. how is it a relief?

[Anonymous No.6046325]

Renaissance Where's Wally

[Anonymous No.6046355]

>>6046314
To my understanding a relief is a sculpture in which the resulting work is left partially in its original rock.
unless that photo was work in progress

[Anonymous No.6046358]

>>6046257
I saw a Rodin in person at the getty. What I thought was interesting was that it was owned by Karl Wittgenstein (father of Ludwig).

[Anonymous No.6046376]

>>6046355
how is that your understanding? how did you arrive at that conclusion? did you read up on what a relief is somewhere? i suggest you do

[Anonymous No.6046401]

>>6046358
Damn phone rotated the image.

[Anonymous No.6046403]

>>6046376
Hmm. Maybe you're right.
I'm gonna go on check my old text book. I'll be right back. Hold on.

[Anonymous No.6046425]

>>6045953
In this case, the "art" is not the paintings of nothing, but the room itself.

And yeah, Pollock is shit.

[Anonymous No.6046483]

>>6046376
OK. This is from my text book:

'Relief, A sculptural technique in which figures or forms are carved either to project from the background surface (raised relief) or cut away below the background level (sunk relief); the degree of the relief is designated as high, low, or sunken"

References to Reliefs in the index:
Assyrian reliefs at the British Museum in London, the White Chapel of Senusret I bla bla bla

Don't see how I'm wrong in saying this>>6046257 is a relief, but if you do - tell me why.

[Anonymous No.6046489]

>>6046425
It's actually both.

>>6046280
Did he? Would you mind posting a picture?
Also I think the XIXth century was great for all arts and disagree with your arbitrary statement that it was the worst for sculpture.

[Anonymous No.6046508]

>>6046489
Do you know if picrelated is after a restoration or something ?

[Anonymous No.6046569]

>>6046508
There are two versions of this painting.

[Anonymous No.6046579]

>>6046569
Yes, I see that now.

[Anonymous No.6046585]

>>6046579
I don't have an epithet big enough to express how much of a pleb you are.

[Anonymous No.6046594]

>>6046208
Do you think his right hand (viewer's left) being curled up is a faux-pas, or is it suggesting that Jesus is actually conscious? If he was really dead or even asleep his fingers should have relaxed and curled out.

[Anonymous No.6046607]

>>6046594
It's perfect this way. This is fucking Jesus ! even dead he won't stop showing the path.
Did it really disturb you when you first saw it? Because to be honest it looks pretty natural to me. A bit of rigor mortis of course, after days being nailed to a cross.

[Anonymous No.6046620]

>>6046483
depends on the definition of background level i guess like looking at bas-reliefs and friezes, the background is literally a background where the scene takes place. it's a lot harder to argue this in the case of rodin's sculpture

[Anonymous No.6046621]

>>6046585
ruined
my
day

[Anonymous No.6046645]

>>6046621
Yeah well if you are the guy with the history degree you deserved it.

[Anonymous No.6046673]

>>6046489
>http://www.accademia.org/explore-museum/artworks/michelangelos-prisoners-slaves/

but these are actually considered incomplete lol but it's the same thing

sculpture seemed to be the one medium that really suffered during the 19th c (at least baudelaire thought so - "why sculpture is boring") i guess until rodin who took it somewhere. there was a fear of life-casting models (this actually happened - 'woman bitten by snake'), it didn't seem to be morally uplifting (compare neoclassical painting, although neoclassical sculpture is pretty nice to look at in a way), and innovations (i guess you could call them that) like degas' dancer were not received well by critics

i'm probably missing the finer nuances since it has been a while since i studied this but basically '19th c sculpture a shit'

[Anonymous No.6046682]

>>6046607
it looks natural to me but the way he shows the path looks more like a gesture of beckoning. obvs the path to salvation is through christ though

[Anonymous No.6046683]

>>6046645
I'm not. you seemed knowledgeable and the pic looked like one I vaguely remembered in my folder

[Anonymous No.6046695]

>>6046673
Critics aren't and have never been relevant. I agree it has been a bit limp but I believe something was taking form from all those experiments at the end at the century.

[Anonymous No.6046704]

>>6046695
>Critics aren't and have never been relevant.

they kind of have in that art criticism was a proxy for political criticism and there is some sort of influence on what is produced

[Anonymous No.6046706]

>>6046683
aww come here
I have been saving a lot of content from some kind of hellenist facebook page, but thx.

>>6046682
well I believe Jesus was not an easy guy to deal with so at every moment he'd be like 'hey look at how wrong you are !!!'

[Anonymous No.6046709]

Art is Dead.

[Anonymous No.6046725]

[Anonymous No.6046740]

>>6046704
Of course, but they still aren't relevant.

See : french critics scandalized by the Rite of Spring 100 years ago, today they are encensing Jeff Koons both at the national museum of contemporary art and the new foundation Vuitton owner has made build.
Art critics are mostly journalists today. Some intellectuals have been writing about it (probably the best you can find on the topic) but these aren't easy to get into and they would not promote any exhibition you make so you can clean or your filthy money. If critics used to not be relevant because of their fear of what was new, which made artists themselves better observants "revolutions" that happened in their medium, nowaday they are cynicist assholes that don't give a shit about art and that will wank on a Murakami 5meters tall manga dick.

Nobody needs them. They exist because people like being told what to do, what to like and to talk about, and because some bad guys want to sell them giant plastic dogs so they can pay less taxes.

[Anonymous No.6046756]

>>6046740
you lost me at your use of the term 'relevant'

critics of art critics, huh

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6046761]

>>6046709
No.
There is merely art you don't like.

[Anonymous No.6046771]

>>6046709
Probably. Though it would be a good idea to develop the reasons of its decay.
In my opinion, after the industrial revolution, many freedoms have been taken by force in art (see Courbet for example) that helpt to made the population less oppressed. It went on and on with Duchamp, with those who worked through complete abstraction, etc. After this, WW2 happened, and abstract expressionnists were like "eh, let's stop making pictures on canvas. let's represent nothing" which killed the spiritual link that was taut between artists and random people. Then, things in general got less spiritual for reasons you know. And now, everything and nothing is art, everything is ugly, art is too expensive for those you need it, museums are like concentration camps and there is no hope.

[Anonymous No.6046775]

>>6046761
I don't like Art because it's Shit.

[Anonymous No.6046801]

>>6046761
No, there is merely only post-modernist cynical shit.

>>6046756
>critics of art critics
Im not targeting any particular critic or magazine, and Im not paid to sell anything to you though. If you want to be kept in this apathy forever, then go for it.

I could stand critics a bit more if there was not this extremely negative thing in their appreciation, which is to always criticize more what is simply beautiful. Im thinking about the film Baraka, which felt like a way to register beauties all over the world that will be gone forever when we'll be all connected and all the same. This movie had very bad appreciations here, because it was seen as naive, boring or worse, indulgent. But this movie had nothing indulgent, it was a warning to all the waste we're making, to all the things we're ruining, and these very critics that speed up this process were so deeply established in their comfort zone they could not question themselves.

Anyway. Sorry for the long story, it is just an example of why these people have no credibility, and why you should not give them any.

As I said, there are plenty of excellent "notes on art" out there, but they weren't written by "critics", mostly by people who despited them for the same reasons that I do.

[Anonymous No.6046819]

>>6046801
>No, there is merely only post-modernist cynical shit
lol

[Anonymous No.6046823]

>>6046761
that looks amazing

[Anonymous No.6046826]

>>6046771
>kupka
this guy is fucking weird

[Anonymous No.6046833]

>>6046826
He's not. He's a dreamer.
If you think in terms such as "weird" when it comes to art you'll never get anything from it.

[Anonymous No.6046836]

>>6046833
never heard of kupka until now, his stuff looks amazing, especially this one>>6045936

[Anonymous No.6046840]

is this >>6046833 oil, and >>6045936 water colour?

[Anonymous No.6046851]

>>6046761
>straight lines in thick grey painting imitating concrete
>amazing

Okay guys Soulages is 95 years old nowadays, don't you think it's time to open representation a bit? Or else it's better stop representing at all.

[Anonymous No.6046856]

>>6046801
i think contemporary film critics are different to 19th c art critics. and not all art critics thought the same way

like i said, it was a proxy for political commentary. after the french revolutions there weren't too many defending traditionalism. i would say a lot of the revolutionary spirit came from art critics, or at least what art critics actually did outside of art criticism (baudelaire - who literally invented the idea of modernity, diderot) if they did nothing in art criticism except 'tell people what to think' (e.g. that the hierarchy of art was actually kind of silly, which of course translates now into people not even knowing there was even a hierarchy of art to begin with)

those arguing against the new were arguing against degeneracy, basically

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6046861]

More Kupka. He's all over the place. Right up there with Klimt imo.

[Anonymous No.6046868]

>>6046840
both oil I assume.
he has painted many different things, from symbolism to complete abstraction. i hope you'll enjoy all of them.

[Anonymous No.6046881]

>>6046856
>after the french revolutions there weren't too many defending traditionalism
That's not true. Many institutions such as "salon officiel" were still working and avant-gardes were forced to make their stuff in marge of all these structures, which Baudelaire's friends did.

[Anonymous No.6046882]

One of my favourite artists working at the moment is Hughie O'Donaghue - he's one of the few serious painters and he manages to neatly straddle abstraction and representation.

In the flesh, his work has a really traditional feel to it while being totally modern. He's really outstanding.

[Anonymous No.6046887]

[Anonymous No.6046901]

>>6046882
>he's one of the few serious painters
What does it mean?

[Anonymous No.6046902]

>>6046882
Thanks for mentioning him. I had never heard of him before but I really like his stuff.

[Anonymous No.6046912]

Alex Colville - Best

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6046913]

>>6046901
It means he has a really traditional feel. This is his prerequisite for "serious"

[Anonymous No.6046914]

>>6046912
Another

[Anonymous No.6046920]

>>6046882
Not bad but why isit so dark and rusty uh?
Here, get some sun.

[Anonymous No.6046921]

[Anonymous No.6046928]

[Anonymous No.6046931]

[Anonymous No.6046940]

>>6046914
typical pleb american shit

>>6046928
what's the purpose of this?

>>6046931
>>6046921
really?

[Anonymous No.6046942]

>>6046901

I meant that there aren't many "serious" artists working these days who stick to traditional painting techniques rather than more fashionable things like installations and whatnot. I didn't express it well because I'm pretty wrecked. I was at a Rothko exhibition this afternoon and we went drinking afterwards because we're mouthy artists and we wanted to shout how erudite we are so now I'm wankered.

So also, Rothko. I fucking love his painting.

[Anonymous No.6046943]

[Anonymous No.6046948]

>>6046913
I feel we should return to more traditional art. I am not entirely against abstract experimental art but it is getting too repetitive.

[Anonymous No.6046949]

>>6046940
>calling anything pleb shit
>while actually asking the meaning of a still life
>not knowing and appreciating Charles Rain
Stop posting any time.

[Anonymous No.6046951]

>>6046940
Canadian actually, and he was a real master, trust me they are very impressive in real life.

[Anonymous No.6046955]

i like art. it's nice. what's the fun in getting worked up over it?

[Anonymous No.6046959]

>>6046955
There is no fun, people just like to pretend to be elitist about everything.
Even when they know nothing about it.

[Anonymous No.6046960]

>>6046931

Honeslty, that looks like the kind of shit my nana puts on the wall. That is some cheesy cheesy painting mang.

[Anonymous No.6046961]

>>6046955
People are passionate about art, it evokes emotion.

[Anonymous No.6046974]

>mfw /lit/'s art 'critiques'
>stumbling about more than /ic/ does with telling other people they're shit
it's embarrassing

[Anonymous No.6046975]

>>6046951
Oh I believe that a gun on a table may be very impressive to you.

>>6046949
>a still life
>not a terrible vase with terrible flowers terribly painted
>not plain shit
>you
>not being able to enjoy quality natures mortes
>not being dead already

[Anonymous No.6046976]

>>6046914
I like him also.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6046981]

>>6046948
I feel we are. Or even have been.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6046992]

>Hughie O'Donaghue
This one's nice
It's paint on photos is it? Reminds me of Dave Mckean and his contemporaries

[Anonymous No.6046998]

>>6046928

Who the fuck is Charles Rain and why am I supposed to give a fuck about his dank-ass flowers in a shell with legs on it?

[Anonymous No.6047002]

>>6046981
Could you stop ruining my thread with your ugly whores?

[Anonymous No.6047004]

>>6046975
before you try posting again, try to not have shit taste and judgement

[Anonymous No.6047008]

>>6046998
>who the fuck is one of the best texture artists of the 20th century
>here look at this rough abomination

[Anonymous No.6047015]

>>6046992
>It's paint on photos is it?

Not sure what the exact techniques are, but there's definitely a lot of overpainting. When I saw them for the first time, I thought it was some kind of acrylic transfer, only with oils not acryl, but I dunno the precise details.

I really like the one you posted, don't think I've seen it before, There's one called The Road which is very similar, probably part of a series.

He did something called the Drunkeness of Noah which I've only seen pictures of, but it looked really good.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047017]

>>6047002
I couldn't possibly.

[Anonymous No.6047018]

>>6047004
>shit taste
would you mind developing? I can't wait for you to explain me the secret depth of this thing!
also, by caring so much, you're proving how these tastes of yours are thoughtless and impulsive.

the painters I like are too busy paiting something relevant.

[Anonymous No.6047022]

>>6047008
>rough abomination
>Picasso

Do fuck off, m8.

[Anonymous No.6047023]

>>6047018
>the painters I like are too busy paiting something relevant.
So they're dead or don't exist?

[Anonymous No.6047025]

>>6047008
>one of the best texture artists
>texture artist

[Anonymous No.6047040]

[Anonymous No.6047050]

>>6047025

Hey, texture artists are important for doing the hair and grass and so forth in vidya games. Don't badmouth them.

I found this with the google, it's also by Charles Rain the "best texture artist".

Loving every laugh.

[Anonymous No.6047052]

>>6047025
>artist

[Anonymous No.6047054]

>>6047023
What would be the difference if they were? How is this an argument when we talk about people who painted so that whatever they wanted to express could cross time?

Monet painted his nympheas like, a century before this thing you posted, with a much more interesting "texture" as you like to call it, and at least it was making people feel something.

[Anonymous No.6047060]

>>6047050
yeah lel
look at this turd

[Anonymous No.6047063]

>>6046998
>>6046975

the flowers are foreign and only bloom at one time of the year. the painting immortalises them in a way. the dutch did this a lot with their still lives

[Anonymous No.6047064]

>>6047050
If only you were not always so late.

[Anonymous No.6047067]

>>6047054
>look at how patrish I am posting redon
Simply ebin.

[Anonymous No.6047072]

>>6047063
it's still a terrible painting.
could you stop being so emotional about it? it's ridiculous. this painter would be ashamed of you defending his work so badly.

[Anonymous No.6047081]

[Anonymous No.6047082]

>>6047054 these flowers
>
>>6046928 these flowers

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047086]

>>6047040
I'm sorry, could you refrain from posting whores? This guy >>6047002 is too sensitive. Makes his tummy ache.

[Anonymous No.6047088]

>>6047072
>it's still a terrible painting.
>could you stop being so emotional about it?
you're being very emotional in your criticism of it
why?

[Anonymous No.6047097]

>>6047072
>it's still a terrible painting.

it achieves what it sets out to do. i don't see how it's terrible when it shows off the wealth of the patron like it's supposed to. not all paintings are remembered for whatever reason you think art should be remembered. technique, or whatever

>could you stop being so emotional about it?

you're replying to the only post i made on the matter

[Anonymous No.6047098]

>>6047086
I guess I'll just have to continue.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047106]

>>6047098

[Anonymous No.6047113]

[Anonymous No.6047117]

>>6047088
Though Im the one who knows what he's talking about here.

>>6047086
Not really. It's just a shame for you to have such bad standards. Distanciation, abstraction, maybe one day you'll be able to appreciate art (that was meant for it) this way, and stop pleasing yourself with this disgusting tasteless amateurism.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047121]

[Anonymous No.6047129]

>>6046881
ok well you keep drifting further and further from the point which was sculpture in the 19th c, not so great

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047131]

>>6047117
You're the most tasteless person ITT
Not for the pictures posted, though, so don't feel too bad about it.

[Anonymous No.6047136]

>>6047106
>contemporary artist
>just imitating orientalist guys from 150 years ago
>you ignoring the existence of these painters, proud of knowing this girl's work

disgusting

[Anonymous No.6047139]

>>6047117
>Though Im the one who knows what he's talking about here.

[Anonymous No.6047145]

>>6047106
Perhaps you just want the boobs.

>>6047131
For what pictures then?

[Anonymous No.6047146]

>>6047136
orientalism is trash anyway

[Anonymous No.6047147]

>>6047145
>For what pictures then?
Not for the pictures, bud.

[Anonymous No.6047152]

>>6047139
It's gonna be okay.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047153]

>>6047136
Just something I picked off the internet for free.

>>6047145
>Perhaps you just want the boobs.
Perhaps
>For what pictures then?
The one you paint of yourself.

[Anonymous No.6047164]

[Anonymous No.6047166]

>>6047146
then what is this >>6047106

>>6047147
>losing your trip
>samefagging
please stop making it so ridiculous and get a bit cultured. you're probably less sterile than what you act like.

[Anonymous No.6047171]

>>6047166
>two people start pointing out how silly you are
>they must be the same

[Anonymous No.6047173]

>female nude
>female nude
>female nude
tell-tale mark of petit bourgeois slime

[Anonymous No.6047180]

>>6046325
Hieronymus Bosch is the shit. Don't even trip.

[Anonymous No.6047181]

[Anonymous No.6047184]

>>6047153
>The one you paint of yourself.
Here, get this quite abstract mockery.

[Anonymous No.6047199]

>>6047171
two people responding at one dig by some attention whoring trip.
well, in one case trip is desperate, in the other you are. Now, you prove you weren't able to handle superior knowledge of superior art. Im gonna be useful somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.6047204]

[Anonymous No.6047209]

>>6047199
quality funposts

[Anonymous No.6047222]

>>6047199
>Now, you prove you weren't able to handle superior knowledge of superior art.

[Anonymous No.6047271]

>>6047018
You must be really fun to hang out with

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047272]

>>6047166
>then what is this >>6047106 (You)
It's a contemporary emulation of the period/style.

>losing your trip
No no. This >>6047153 was my response
>The one you paint of yourself.

>>6047173
The nude has been used ever since the beginning, Christfag.

>>6047184
>Klee
Yawn

[Anonymous No.6047284]

>>6047173
>hating the nude
Tell-tale mark of fascist-futurist slime.

[Anonymous No.6047308]

threads like these are great, because they remind me that the low level of discourse on 4chan, especially /lit/, is nothing but poison for my brain.

bye guys, see you in a week or so when I forget.

[Anonymous No.6047313]

>>6047308
Funny, made me feel the exact same way.

[Anonymous No.6047336]

>>6046761
>Watch as the artist inserts his arm into his gigantic concrete asshole

[Anonymous No.6047346]

>>6047308
Posts like these are great, because they remind me that some people browse 4chan regularly but are still entirely incapable of just ignoring posts they dislike. I never understood why moot even implimented the filter and hiding system. If a bunch of autistic newfags gets rustled then fuck 'em

[Anonymous No.6047362]

>>6047346
4chanX has been on the fritz ever since the new captcha system. Otherwise I wouldn't need to see dumb ass threads to know it's time to leave.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047363]

>>6047336
Jay DeFoe is a woman. and I've seen this (or is another version?) painting. No hole.

[Emil Liénard 2003 !vRiBH2uekA No.6047364]

there are no arguments to what makes art better than any other work of art. its purely subjective.

[Anonymous No.6047370]

does anyone seriously think there is a better work of art than Michaelangelo's David?

[Anonymous No.6047376]

>>6047272
not rly female nudes tho. that was a big 19th c thing towards the latter half of the century when male nudes seemed to stop entirely. it's weird

u can tell when someones a total art pleb when they only like late 19th c art, evidenced by the posting of female nudes

[Anonymous No.6047378]

>>6046861
I find most of his work incredibly ugly but then sometimes he surprises you with something incredible. Really strange painter

[Anonymous No.6047380]

a reaction image goldmine, even though it's just a salacious Jacques-Louis rip-off

[Anonymous No.6047382]

>>6047370
donatello's david

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6047387]

>>6047370
-> >>6047364
It's a nice statue.

[Anonymous No.6047401]

[Anonymous No.6047406]

His Moses is sexier than his David anyway.

[Emil Liénard 2003 !vRiBH2uekA No.6047410]

>>6047380
I love this. I the people of the time reacted the same way toward the painting.

[Emil Liénard 2003 !vRiBH2uekA No.6047416]

>>6047380
Here is another image that is a goldmine for reactions.

[Anonymous No.6047443]

[Anonymous No.6047648]

>>6046948
Alighieri and Virgil if im not mistaken ?

[Anonymous No.6047660]

>>6047648
no it's Harold and Kumar

[Anonymous No.6047683]

>>6047660
> being this edgy

Come on pal, go get some fresh air, that's enough of trying to be cool on the internet for you.

As for the question, I still want to know the answer and the artist behind the work.

[Anonymous No.6047710]

>>6047683
>being this dumb
no shit it's Virgil and Dante
it's Gustave Dore, clearly based on or emulating his engraved illustrations for the Comedy

[Anonymous No.6047745]

>>6047710
as a passerby in this thread who doesnt really give a shit about what youre talking about i wanna say fuck you because youre being a dick

[Anonymous No.6047823]

>>6047710
Once again I reiterate my point of you being a massive asshole with nothing better to do. Go fuck yourself and leave this thread .

>>6047745
Muh nigga you know.

[Anonymous No.6047834]

>>6047823
>>6047745
why are you so ass-hurt, you got what you wanted didn't you?

[Anonymous No.6047860]

>>6047823
tineye.com for future reference

[Anonymous No.6048311]

typical day on post-/pol/ /lit/

nerds and edgylord who had never read antyhing beyond 1984 and harry potter hating on MUH degenerated art

[Anonymous No.6048319]

>>6045885
>this fucking plen wants to use aesthetic theory but also wants to talk about good and bad
have you read any theory written since WWI?

[Anonymous No.6048986]

>>6047370

People who've actually seen art instead of just accepting what they're told, yeah.

For example, Bernini's David is probably better.

[Anonymous No.6049423]

>>6047017
>the constant reminder that i will never be able to paint like this
it hurts to live

[Anonymous No.6049452]

[Anonymous No.6049457]

[Anonymous No.6049522]

[Anonymous No.6049855]

>>6046325
These days you can buy Bosch action figures on the net.

[Anonymous No.6050035]

>>6046325
Bosch is fantastic

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6050192]

>>6049522
Sad this is, he wasn't even trying to make a moonscape

[Anonymous No.6050927]

>>6046931
just had a flashback to my first trip to disney world

[Anonymous No.6050935]

>>6047040
looks like yung lean

[Anonymous No.6050949]

>>6047117
total bad trip brah

[Anonymous No.6050971]

>>6047406
according to freud, he's holding the tablet like that because he was about to drop it in rage at seeing his people worshipping idols--but he caught it between his arm and his side

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6050991]

>>6050971
And here he is. An idol.

[Anonymous No.6051026]

>>6050991
why do the nipples keep falling off?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051047]

>>6051026
The pope above sneaks down and vandalizes them.

[Anonymous No.6051134]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051162]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051174]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051184]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051199]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051207]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051218]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051223]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051238]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051241]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051246]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051276]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051285]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.6051294]

[Anonymous No.6051362]

>>6047416
One of my favourite paintings of all time. The letter the Cossacks send to the Sultan is so crude and so good.

[Anonymous No.6051466]

>>6046187
They aren't even painted
You guys would hate Greek Hellenism if we still had them in their original state

[Anonymous No.6051858]

>>6051362
>Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Turkish Sultan! O sultan, Turkish devil and damned devil's kith and kin, secretary to Lucifer himself. What the devil kind of knight are you, that can't slay a hedgehog with your naked arse? The devil excretes, and your army eats. You will not, you son of a bitch, make subjects of Christian sons; we've no fear of your army, by land and by sea we will battle with thee, fuck your mother. You Babylonian scullion, Macedonian wheelwright, brewer of Jerusalem, goat-fucker of Alexandria, swineherd of Greater and Lesser Egypt, pig of Armenia, Podolian thief, catamite of Tartary, hangman of Kamyanets, and fool of all the world and underworld, an idiot before God, grandson of the Serpent, and the crick in our dick. Pig's snout, mare's arse, slaughterhouse cur, unchristened brow, screw your own mother! So the Zaporozhians declare, you lowlife. You won't even be herding pigs for the Christians. Now we'll conclude, for we don't know the date and don't own a calendar; the moon's in the sky, the year with the Lord, the day's the same over here as it is over there; for this kiss our arse!


Kek, top Bantz

[Anonymous No.6052732]

Who Pre-Raphaelite here.

[Anonymous No.6052754]

>>6046771

Holy shit you are the most pretentious fucking ponce I've heard all day.

>And now, everything and nothing is art, everything is ugly, art is too expensive for those you need it, museums are like concentration camps and there is no hope.

HOW ABOUT YOU STOP LOOKING IN GALLERIES AND START LOOKING AT WHAT THE PUBLIC IS MAKING YOU DIPSHIT

[Anonymous No.6052999]

>>6045923

Agree.

[Anonymous No.6053000]

>>6045953

Rothko is a good troll, his "art" sucks.

[Anonymous No.6053006]

>>6046310

that can't be good for you.

[Anonymous No.6053016]

>>6053006
I know right? He's not even using starter fluid on a rag and huffing the evaporating ether. What the actual fuck!

[Anonymous No.6053023]

>>6053016
he might as well have just held the can pointed at his face and started spraying.

[Anonymous No.6053043]

>>6053023
Interestingly enough, Knockemstiff by Donald Ray Pollock has a story with people huffing spraypaint. It describes the expression he has and his eyes perfectly. If you can stomache edgy, I highly recommend that book. It's hyperviolence but not like Chuckie P, it's just baaaaarely over the edge into "this is too far to be real", and more focused on conditions and how nihilistic peoples bodies deteriorate while they hatefully
intereact with each other. Having lived amongst destitute people in the USA (and not even close to the level Pollock is portraying), it is not even that unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.6053265]

I like this one

[Anonymous No.6053339]

>>6053265
That series of illustrations is great.

[Anonymous No.6053405]

>>6046912
this show was sick

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053429]

>>6053339
There are better illustrators out there

>>6053405
That's not a show. It's a painting. What re you referring to?

[Anonymous No.6053440]

>>6053429
No doubt, but they're still nice.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053441]

>>6053440
Naw. That's shit.

[Anonymous No.6053442]

>>6053429
colville show at AGO

[Anonymous No.6053443]

>>6053441
Naw. That's shit.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053447]

>>6053442
An *art show* I see.

[Anonymous No.6053449]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053451]

[Anonymous No.6053453]

>>6053447
>frazetta
just awful

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053455]

>>6053449
>Rackham
He's great

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053458]

>>6053453
He's on par with that pic.
Not as inventive as he might seem, but it was just to pay his bills

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053466]

>Hans_Baldung_Grien
Interesting. Props for the time period I guess.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053470]

[Anonymous No.6053474]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053475]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053479]

[Anonymous No.6053482]

I can't remember which one it is, but there is an art board somewhere.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053483]

[Anonymous No.6053486]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053489]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053493]

[Anonymous No.6053498]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6053502]

[Anonymous No.6053594]

>rate artists best to worst
>prove your tastes aren't shit

if this is genuinely how you think about art then:

1) grow up
2) have yourself tested for aspergers

[Anonymous No.6053620]

>>6053594
This thread was the test.
Read the results for yourself.