/lit/ - Literature

[EvolaKid !s8d1Nb4fdM No.6155830]

why has art gotten so bad?

[Anonymous No.6155840]

>>6155830
why has art gotten so good

[Anonymous No.6155846]

>>6155830

Michael Bay, mang.

[Anonymous No.6155852]

>>6155840

So much pretentious shit back then

[Anonymous No.6155855]

>>6155840
Time periods are all over the place and the few truly modern ones only show a minority part of today's art.

[Anonymous No.6155858]

>>6155840
>2666
i finally got to read that since everyone loves it. it sucked.

[Anonymous No.6155859]

>>6155830
You just want something to complain about
>exit thread

[Anonymous No.6155861]

this is not /lit/

>reported

[Anonymous No.6155867]

>>6155830
What's bad about that?

[Anonymous No.6155869]

because you are cherry picking from a style of art you like and a style you don't. Not all modern art is avant garde

[Anonymous No.6155870]

>>6155830
because

1) over time a good amount of people have gained the mindset that having art with some deep and pretentious meaning is more important than actual skill and composition. This leads to art spiraling down a circle jerk where it is only created for other artists and those pretentious enough to pretend they understand. Because if it was actually beautifully made and had deeper meaning than its beauty alone would make it accessible to the layman and to modern artists with their head stuck up their asses, this is unacceptable.

2) you're kinda cherry picking a bit. there has always been shit retarded art and there always will be. The difference is that now we live in an era of greater connectivity where it is way easier to be noticed. thus the autismoid "artists" who pump out shit like stuff on the right are being found and validated whereas in the past the would be forgotten about and died in poverty.

[Anonymous No.6155874]

>>6155830
Why are you so butthurt about it?
You're the second worst tripfag on this board

[Anonymous No.6155875]

>>6155870
Great post

[Anonymous No.6155879]

Art is a mirror of society.
I'd say the art piece in that image illustrates current society pretty well. The best selling paperback of all time is about a woman's cunt being wet with fear.

[Anonymous No.6155884]

>op's biggest contribution to culture is this thread, which sucks big fat black cocks

[Anonymous No.6155885]

>>6155870
I'm not an artist, and 'my cunt is wet with fear'totally works with me. So does the painting o the right, but both are almost too different to meaningfully compare.

[Anonymous No.6155887]

Good art is expensive.

Society cannot afford to pay for 30 years of supreme classical training just to get five paintings. Da Vinci made like ten good paintings. Picasso made thousands.
Individuals are no longer willing to sacrifice 100+ hours per week doing nothing but painting and for a shit wage.

[Anonymous No.6155889]

Thomas Cole is pleb shit. Way to know fuck-all about art, OP.

[Anonymous No.6155891]

>>6155830
Sauce on before pic?

I think there always has been shitty art, just that only the good survived.

[Anonymous No.6155894]

>>6155884
He's made bigger contributions like shit-/pol/sting.

[Anonymous No.6155895]

>>6155887
This

Not every art student has a king sponsoring them, allowing them to basically shut down their lives in order to paint a masterpiece

[Anonymous No.6155897]

>>6155874
Who's the worst?

[Anonymous No.6155900]

>>6155830
not your blog, ebolakid

[Anonymous No.6155905]

>>6155891
exactly, op is no different from any other "le wrong generation" type. takes only the good from before and compares it to only the shit of now.

[Anonymous No.6155911]

>>6155891
Sensible post detected, please remove yourself from this thread

[Anonymous No.6155912]

>>6155870
>plebshits can go "oooh he must have spended many hours crafting that cherub dick, oooh that Bougereau" without undestanding historical context
>good
>also those sweeping genealizations

kill yourself uneducated nigger

[Anonymous No.6155915]

Dribble :^)

[Anonymous No.6155916]

>all the mad modernist ITT

[Anonymous No.6155921]

played out naturalistic heroic scenes that are completely kitsch after theyve been coopted by every government ever for propaganda versus kunstlich lichtkunst its hum and soft glow rising from this new form of sublated art-philosophy "god was only sleeping" -- hans blumenberg after viewing

[Anonymous No.6155925]

Is Hudson River supposed to be "old" art? Lol.

[Anonymous No.6155926]

Art Schools no longer teach constructive drawing. Which is how classical and romantic painting were made.

The closest to this is the French Russian school of drawing. Which is still taught at Russian art academies.

Western art schools mostly give lectures on the humanities and you are left to your own creating art. Very little teaching or supervising. Cares a lot about the 'meaning' or 'message' of art.

There is also the American Italian school of drawing which mimics the French Russian style and does teach its students very well. This one can be found in plenty of schools across Europe and America.
But it teaches you to draw by cheating, making illusions, basically using the artist as a photo camera. Creating very flat, stale drawings without any sense of form or fluidity.

[Anonymous No.6155927]

>this thread
>again and again and again and again and again

ever tried to pick up a book about aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.6155930]

>>6155926

[Anonymous No.6155935]

>>6155887
Picasso made zero good paintings

[Anonymous No.6155943]

>>6155935

[Anonymous No.6155944]

>>6155935

[Anonymous No.6155948]

>>6155935
Not true, as much as I dislike what made him famous he was a master painter and his earlier works are amazing.

[Anonymous No.6155965]

communists hating beauty because they despise any form of elevation

[Anonymous No.6155978]

Another question, why do reactionaries here, when it comes to art threads, post the most pompous and overblown shit imaginable, are they even aware that there's other stuff than academical painting of 19th century?

[Anonymous No.6155985]

>>6155978
Well... they are kind of the best.

[Anonymous No.6155987]

>>6155897
Captain AUTISM.

[Anonymous No.6155994]

[Anonymous No.6155997]

>>6155935
Not necessarily a bad painter, but he is a scoundrel.

Some should've processed him for painting Guernica. Ultimate opportunism benefiting from tragedy and sensationalism.

[Anonymous No.6155999]

>>6155987
who's the best?

[Anonymous No.6156001]

>>6155965
Abstract art was used as propaganda by the capitalist West during the Cold War. So apparently you not only fail to understand art, but history too.

>>6155985
It's utter shit. If you are going to glorify the good old days then at least go back to the High Renaissance - or, even better, Start With The Greeks.

[Anonymous No.6156005]

>>6156001
>Abstract art was used as propaganda by the capitalist West during the Cold War. So apparently you not only fail to understand art, but history too.

the communists infiltrated the west during the cold war

[Anonymous No.6156006]

>>6155997
>Ultimate opportunism benefiting from tragedy and sensationalism.
They told him to paint a mural for the Exposition Internationale and the bombings had just happened. It's not like it's something he did to get famous: he was already fucking famous.

[Anonymous No.6156008]

>>6155999
Satan, probably. Dunno if he even browses this nowadays, though.

[Anonymous No.6156009]

>>6155840
What are the two pieces on the top left?

[Anonymous No.6156010]

>>6155830
Artists now live in a capitalist society rather than under systems of patronage.

Ironically it's always the pro-capitalist types who tend to complain the loudest about how shitty art is today.

[Anonymous No.6156011]

>>6156009
Duchamp's Fountain and Malevich's White Square on White Ground.

[Anonymous No.6156012]

>>6156005
Avant-garde art was totally suppressed in the Soviet Union, idiot. You would probably find Stalin's attitude towards art very agreeable to your own backwards notions.

[Anonymous No.6156015]

>>6156011
Ack I meant top left on the right half, I should have said.

[Anonymous No.6156016]

>>6156010
>Ironically it's always the pro-capitalist types who tend to complain the loudest about how shitty art is today.
Because "muh degeneracy" and "muh cultural marxism".

[Anonymous No.6156017]

ironically romanticism killed it. art started dying before cole, op

[Anonymous No.6156018]

>>6155965
am i being hornswaggled right now?

communists championed realism while america went full retard in the opposite direction with abstract expressionism

capitalist countries were the epicenter of all the "my 4 year old could do this" art and while coutries like russia and china stuck to traditional forms

pic related, sculpture from communist china

[Anonymous No.6156020]

>>6155840
wow literally everything in that picture sucks

[Anonymous No.6156027]

>>6156020
Story of the Eye is actually good, though.

[Anonymous No.6156030]

>>6155830
>Muh objectivity

HAHAHAHAHAHAH FUCKING RETARD HAHA

[Anonymous No.6156032]

>>6156018
s-stop counterfacting my prejudices...

[Anonymous No.6156042]

>>6156018
>weelism

13 year old alert

[Anonymous No.6156048]

>>6156006
There was a scare around air bombing in that time. It was a new thing and people thought air power could end the world (or, at least, make war seriously inhumane). The guernica bombings were the first "successful" bombimg to happen. It was a new kind of hell on earth. Most people were pissing their pants.

What the bandit does? Paints a sketch in less than a month that today costs millions. It is a really bad joke. The quintessence of "painting for shock value". 9/11 has nothing to come even close of this level of banditry.

[Anonymous No.6156050]

>>6155830

1) The Industrial Revolution

2) The Digital Revolution

3) Money laundering

4) Artisans have earned an understandable paranoia about non-artists defining what is and isn't art after countless oppressive regimes, the industrial revolution and the digital revolution. Their defensiveness has rendered them useful idiots who will vehemently defend money launderers, vandals, hacks and assembly line techniques that have debased the value of the very skills they trade on.

[Anonymous No.6156051]

>>6156042
>Take a good look at my absolute lack of arguments.

[Anonymous No.6156053]

"art" died because nobody gives a shit about still images anymore

why spend a shitload of cash, time and skill painting some fresco when you could spend a shitload of cash, time and skill making a 3 hour masterpiece or some shit like that

i mean look at this dog gif

it's much more cuddly than a dog jpg

and if it was a 2 minute webm with sound, 60 FPS and HD resolution it would be exponentially cuddlier still

same principle for art

[Anonymous No.6156058]

>>6156051
>muh everyone should paint in the same way or I'll get upset

[Anonymous No.6156060]

>>6156042
we all know wheelieism is the best movement

as in: "watch me pop this gnarly wheelie on my sick BMX man"
[proceeds to pop gnarly wheelie]

it's those stupid endoism faggots that ruined wheelieism. hurr durr watch me press my brakes really hard while I faceplant so epic. takes no skill.

[Anonymous No.6156062]

>>6156048
>"painting for shock value"
Picasso was Spanish. He was also a leftist. The nazis bombed Guernica helping Franco win the Civil War. Can you connect the dots by yourself?
If an Ukranian now makes a painting about war on his country is it for shock value too?

[Anonymous No.6156066]

>>6156058
Are you literally retarded? Read that post again and the post it responds to (btw, I'm not that guy).

[Anonymous No.6156088]

The one on the left is just a scene. While it is pretty if you disregard how sterile and primitive the way middle ages art draws people is, it doesn't say anything. It's just a painting.

The one on the right makes a statement, it has a message and carries the very soul of the artist. It is bold and sees the beauty in simplicity. It is poetic. It is infinitely complex while also being simple, it makes you think.

[Anonymous No.6156092]

>>6156088
>middle ages art
jesus christ

[Anonymous No.6156124]

>>6156042
read my post carefully, i never said i personally thought abstract expressionism or non-realist art was bad. or that the only good art is realistic. thats what the guy im responding to believes.

[Anonymous No.6156158]

>>6155858

>it sucks

Your opinion is obliteratingly worthless if you don't explain why

[Anonymous No.6156167]

>>6155830
Gross a tripfag. Listen you dodgy cunt, you're picking the best from the past and the worst from now. Your image is wrong and you are completely fucked.

[Anonymous No.6156197]

>>6155858
can you give more insight than that to why you didn't like it?

[Anonymous No.6156199]

>>6155944
Dank chemistry maymay

[Anonymous No.6156210]

>>6155830
Looked great at LACMA although overshadowed by the Samurai exhibit

[Anonymous No.6156212]

>>6155830
Gonna be honest, op. if that was around in the 1850s it would have drawn quite a crowd out of scientific curiosity.

[Anonymous No.6156231]

>>6155830
if someone painted what's on the left in 2014 would you still think the same of it?

[Anonymous No.6156250]

we need some of those 1885 standards back

[Anonymous No.6156258]

>>6156250
society has changed since then

[Anonymous No.6156264]

>>6156062
Guernica is also a piece of abstract art that is definitely great.

[Anonymous No.6156267]

>>6156250
To be fair, the French Academy of Arts actually had specific standards in the 1800s.

[Anonymous No.6156279]

>>6156250
what the fuck is the unit of measurement for "artistic standards", and how do you measure it?

[Anonymous No.6156286]

>>6156279
lol you're pretty fuckin dumb if you can't conceive of a way to do what you asked, you're just a TTKM.

[Anonymous No.6156625]

Art is all subjective you fucking idiots

Stop trying to standardize and empiricise that which does not need standardizing or empiricising, and finish your stem degree

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6156747]

>lol I'll represent contemporary art with a shitty example and old art with one of the better examples
No, actually, you didn't. You're just an art pleb who knows jack shit about art, your knowledge comparable to music knowledge like
>Brahms, Stravinsky, Bach, the list goes on

And you saw this picture posted somewhere (/pol/), and due to your nigger-tier art education, it made you grumpy

[Anonymous No.6156799]

>>6155879
This logic is sound

[Anonymous No.6156889]

Itt: people who don't understand the contemporary art market

[Anonymous No.6156901]

>>6156625
>Art is all subjective

Why can't art be subjective and objective at the same time? There are as many skills as there are concepts. Yes, one half of art is the thoughts that go into it and the context, but the other half is the ability of the artist to deliver his thoughts.

[Anonymous No.6157001]

>>6156901

There are plenty of paintings that satisfy all objective aesthetic standards and can still make you yawn. I agree that some things look better than others, but art isn't about looking good. It's about showing you something you've never seen. That's why a painting of the Taj Mahal would've been gorgeous and valuble before the age of photography, but now it's dull and pointless. It's the spirit and substance of pretty much every endeavor of visual art. Objective standards are for people designing houses and cars. It's a commercial concept that has nothing to do with real art.

And I know this opens up a whole debate about what "real art" is, but fuck it. The people who matter know the difference.

[Anonymous No.6157069]

>>6157001
>It's about showing you something you've never seen.
lmao
>>6156889
obviously, it's one of the most used ways to launder money while building a ~reputation~

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6157081]

>>6157069
>obviously, it's one of the most used ways to launder money
This meme started on /pol/, right?

Are you suggesting all the foremost artists of the world are in fact very high profile drug dealers who have never been caught?

[Anonymous No.6157100]

>>6157081
no, i certainly meant the bunch of ~art collectors~ paying ridiculous amounts in an artificially inflated markets.

if anything the "artists" are the victims here, victims of their ego, complacency and a digusting market.

[Anonymous No.6157147]

>>6155855
any little infographic like this will show a minority of any period of art, are you retarded

[Anonymous No.6157180]

Art is a money laundering scheme, the only thing 'bad' about it is that you aren't rich, nerd

[Anonymous No.6157372]

>>6155830
>>6155900

Did op take this from a vice article?

[ΟΥΤΙΣ No.6157384]

>>6157100
The bourgeoisie buys art to show off, they spend a fuckload of money on clothing as well. That's because they value the cost of something more than than anything else, what is conspicuous consumption. Of the art weren't expensive, they wouldn't want it.

[1/2 No.6157687]

>>6157081
it sounds like a /pol/ meme

>>6157069
>>6157100
>>6157180
yeah except anyone who parrots this hasn't really exercised ANY critical thinking. they/you don't even understand what money laundering is.

so let's say some arms or drug cartel/dealer wants to take their dirty money and turn it into clean bills. their money is going to be in cash. they would have to buy the painting, then re-sell it back onto the market. so lets look at some of the most expensive paintings at auction and their buyers:

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

founder of dreamworks. real estate. finance/bankers. estee lauder heir. lots of museums. so, first of all, we're already out of the first scenario, which was a stupid hypothesis ayway, because a) you would be very easily caught if you made such a large single payment with dirty money, and b) these paitings tend to stay in their museums or private collections. no reselling going on here.

so the next possible scenario: these cartels and big time mobsters approach these guys and museums with the cash, and then the bidders would have to wash the money themselves, or else risk paying the seller in dirty money, easily being caught (popular methods of laundering money involve making small deposits in financial instruments. smaller movements are more difficult to track). this doesn't make sense, since the washer/bidder is going to want a cut for doing something cartels, gangs, and mobsters already do: launder the money themselves.

even IF this was going on, it still doesn't reach the complaint of OP and the others. the art that's being sold at high market prices are gaugin, cezanne, picasso, klimt, lots of van gogh, francis bacon, and warhol. even the art with the closest tie to the "shitty modern conceptual art" that is the bane of the reactionary's imagination, warhol, is generally at least over 50 years old. FIFTY. you can make a bit more of a case for abstract expressionism, and there are many rothko pieces that fetch prices in millions, but not for the hundreds of millions like an gogh or warhol. even then, abstract expressioism is still also over 50 years old, and has little connection with the concept and performance art OP and his ilk are complaining about.

[2/2 No.6157695]

if there was an actual connection like the one the "modern art is money laundering" memers say, we would see RECENT art being sold for millions of dollars, not art over 50 years old. for the thesis to be logical in the preset circumstances, we would have to be seeing an art world dominated by pop art and warhol wannabes, not art based on identity politics, performance, high concept, or shock art.

conversely, whats the going rate for the kind of art OP and others are complaining about? lets look at some recent auctions. here we go, perfect example, a blank canvas: https://www.artsy.net/artwork/david-ostrowski-f-the-best-part-of-the-story

how much did it sell for? $10,000. thats fucking chump change for money laundering. look at other auctions, most of this kind of stuff barely get about $100k. but wait, what about what i said earlier about may more smaller deposits? for that argument to be tenable, you'd have to show how black markets have infiltrated and bid at all these auctions, then resell the paintings. the first part is unlikely because the investment of time is too much compared to other methods of laundering, and the second thing (reselling) isn't happenig either. not only the investment of time, but the middle men involved. we're talking about cocaine from south america, opium products from afghanistan, "2nd-world" (like china and russia) sex traffickers makig contacts with americans and europeans to bid at these auctions, because they'd look sus as fuck there, let alone plane ticket costs, etc.

but im not saying here that the line of thiking involved is off. if we want to be cynical about it, of course it is easy for a rich person to view the art purely as an investment. especially if the market on warhol is bullish. another possibility, sure these can be expensive gifts. political gestures. for example, the saudi royal family showered the obama family with an obscene amount of precious jewelry after barack's inauguration. why not a rothko or two? here, again, no connection with laundering. we'd have to see the paiting for sale again before we ca consider it more than a friendly gesture between incredibly rich friends/acquaintences.

im done with my reasoning for now. can we please end this 'modern art is laundering' meme once and for all?

[Anonymous No.6157847]

>>6157695
>smaller movements more difficult to track
>10K chump change for a money launderer

[Anonymous No.6157863]

>>6157847
i knew that reply would come up and i addressed it in the same paragraph.

[Anonymous No.6158166]

>>6155830
Drugs. It brought about a greater focus on abstract expression and feeling and a lessened the focus on actually having skill.
But in reality there is lots of good art out there OP, you're just a faggot and cant be asked to look for anything decent

[Anonymous No.6158183]

>>6156250
That chart says that artistic standarts in the 20th century are potentially correlated to violence international wars. cool.

[Anonymous No.6158186]

what this nonsense?

[Anonymous No.6158217]

>>6158186
Are North Koreans the last true romantic artists?

[Anonymous No.6158222]

>>6155830
>gotten

[Anonymous No.6158225]

>>6155830
I unironically like the second one better. It at least gives you a reaction other than "oh, art"

The first one is part of a series btw and it sort of sucks when divorced from the other 3 or 4 paintings it goes with

tldr OP's image sucks

[Anonymous No.6158237]

[Anonymous No.6158245]

Lol, this shitty trip just outed himself as a teenager.

Also, define "bad"

Idiot.

[Anonymous No.6158249]

>>6155912
Not even him, but that's even a bigger issue with modern art. Before you can even look at, let's say an empty shoe box, you have to listen to a lecture portraying this work of 'art' as some sort of deep expression and a critique of X, appraisal of y and so forth. Then you have to know the 'historical context'. In the end you are supposed to enjoy all of this and praise the artist for being brave and original.

I'll stick to looking at those old, boring paintings, thank you.

[Anonymous No.6158281]

>>6156747
>knowing great, but well known composers makes you a pleb because I'm not aware of your favorite, not-so-favorite ( how could it be otherwise! ) composer
Please.

[Anonymous No.6158295]

>>6155830
isn't the second piece a deliberate down-dressing of the OP's repressed power/rape fantasies?
you know, by calling it out in bare neon, it dehumanises you dehumanising action?

[Anonymous No.6158306]

https://vimeo.com/112655231

[Anonymous No.6158310]

I must say im kind of suprised in a thread on lit nobody actually has learnt what happened to art.

In summary.

In the time of famous painters cameras did not exist. If you wanted a picture of yourself you needed a painter. Hence painters became highly valuable. With so many people painting some obvioulsy ended up really good, also some would paint other stuff.

Also the other main use for painting was to paint biblical or historical moments to use as propaganda on the citizens in churches etc.

Enter cameras and TV and that was the absolute end of painting as it could not compete with the modern technology.

And finally, despite all this there are actually some amazing modern painters.
Id rather look at there work than anything from history.

Check out
Michael Hussar
zdzislaw beksinski

[Anonymous No.6158334]

>>6158310
Beksinski I'm familliar with, and I think he's fantastic, though I'm not as keen on Hussar's general style; particularly the bruised puffy lips, which I don't find as appealingly repulsive as perhaps I might.

Honestly though, it amazes me that in an age where millions of artists are constantly flooding the net with work of every level of quality and subject matter imaginable, some people still try to proclaim that "art is dead".

I think this is a prime indicator that whoever expresses it does not "follow" art in anything but the most casual sense;

They don't look around for good work; they wait for it to be dumped into their open mouth like an irate baby bird chirping irritably at the quality of the maggots it has stuffed into it's face.

Art isn't dead in any sense; it's more alive and accessible than ever, and broader than can even be imagined.

There's room enough for classicists and experimentalists alike.

[Anonymous No.6158344]

>>6155965
>what is dialectical materialism
>being this ignorant

[Anonymous No.6158352]

>>6156020
You're probably an ugly and unbearable person if you're using the word literally correctly.

[Anonymous No.6158371]

>>6158310
>Enter cameras and TV and that was the absolute end of painting as it could not compete with the modern technology.
Bullshit. Painting was never about photorealism.

The reason art is dead is because it became a valuable investment asset and eventually came to be controlled by wall-street banking types. (I.e., soulless drug addicts and ass-pouding faggots.)

The reason it because a valuable investment asset is due to fiat currencies becoming the norm.

[Anonymous No.6158394]

>>6158371

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95_7l87prmI&list=PLFE968115B5CB9865&index=2

Here is the best ever documentary made about painting.

Its made by the BBC and is hours long but really interesting and covers the life of some of the most famous painters of all time.

Have a watch of that and then think if your wall st banker argument makes any sense what so ever.

[Anonymous No.6158407]

>>6155870
/thread

[Anonymous No.6158414]

>>6158186
Isnt it interesting that they painted the Dear Leader in such a way as to not hide his gut/out of shape body? You'd think that with all the superhuman stories they attribute to him and his kin, they'd wanna make him look fit

[Anonymous No.6158415]

>>6155926

>Western art schools mostly give lectures on the humanities and you are left to your own creating art. Very little teaching or supervising. Cares a lot about the 'meaning' or 'message' of art.

Art before modernism was actually much more in-tuned with theories than we now realize. I dislike the pretension that modernists and postmodernists assert that while their art lacks in skill, they make up for it in theory or meaning, since it implies that art before was just "pretty art." The greatest painters of the past had minds as great as Shakespeare's. Art was much more unified back then so that it's not inconceivable that a painter would read poetry. In fact, poetry and liberal arts were the main source of inspiration for artists.

>There is also the American Italian school of drawing which mimics the French Russian style...creating very flat, stale drawings...
I agree. Neo-Bargue school is a disease. What's even worse is when I see these new academics try to be original or different and do some gimmicks, or when they devolve into hyper sensationalism as a reaction to modernist view that "old art" is devoid of emotion. It's all reactionary.

[Anonymous No.6158418]

>>6158414
Lad, he's depicted as a classic paternal figure; rotund, good humoured and capable of doing no wrong.

He's like Father Christmas crossed with Chiang Kai-shek.

[Anonymous No.6158431]

>>6158418
Did you seriously call me a lad? Jesus christ, guy

[Anonymous No.6158434]

>>6155985
They're the best in depicting reality but in everything else they fail compared to high renaissance. Only Bouguereau was able to make really realistic paintings look like art from that era, and that's because he made a model of Raphael.

>>6155978
It's not even just reactionaries here. It's happening in the new academies. They think that since the most common quality before modernism is the ability to paint convincing figures, they who painted them most accurately were the greatest, especially in their quest for objectivity. Then they go on to paint very little else other than studio figures in strong studio lighting. The enemies of Bouguereau their master. Ironically, accuracy to nature was, back then, considered subjective, and art that conforms better idealism was more objective.

[Anonymous No.6158440]

>>6158431
Alright, sorry there miss.

[Anonymous No.6158465]

>>6156088
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.6158470]

>>6158394
> argument from authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_art#mediaviewer/File:Reconstruction_of_the_temple_of_Jerusalem.jpg

Do you fucking think the artist wanted realism in that painting, you fucking pleb?

And yes, they did know about perspective, you fucking neanderthal, they drew it that way deliberately.

[Anonymous No.6158481]

>>6156005
>the communists infiltrated the west
>in order to fight against the Soviet Union

/pol/ logic ladies and gentlemen

[Anonymous No.6158485]

>>6156010
>in a capitalist society rather than under systems of patronage
Do you think those two can be combined?

[Anonymous No.6158486]

>>6158470

Confirmed for not watching the documentary.

The very first artist covered is caravaggio who absolutely was going for photorealism and got amazingly close all things considered.

either stay a pleb level or watch it so you actually have any idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.6158519]

>>6158486
I'm not going to watch some shitty movie spawned from the Big Black Cock, keep that shit to yourself, boy.

> caravaggio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravaggio#mediaviewer/File:Conversion_on_the_Way_to_Damascus-Caravaggio_%28c.1600-1%29.jpg

You fucking think he was trying to be 'potorealistic' in that painting? Fucking really??

Fucking protip: light in the real world does not work like that, and Caravaggio knew it damn well, and used his non-realistic technique with deliberate skill.

[Anonymous No.6158536]

>>6158486
How do you go for photorealism before cameras? Also stop pretending like photorealism is equivalent to reality, photographs look like photographs, they're very easy to tell from a real subject.

[Anonymous No.6158539]

>>6155840
>there will be blood

Stop. Just awful. Where is the one with Werckmeister Harmonies?

[Anonymous No.6158546]

>>6158539

>Stop. Just awful.


Now that's edgy son.

[Anonymous No.6158562]

http://youtu.be/yJDeMqVYfn0?t=19m18s

Modern art is more about the context of each piece's creation, sentiment, and artist; than it is about the pieces themselves.
It can't be validly generalized that it's worse than what preceded it, only different.

[Anonymous No.6158564]

>>6158562
jesus fucking christ what a terrible fucking video, he talks like a shithead

[Anonymous No.6158567]

>>6158564
>jesus fucking christ what a terrible fucking video
Haha. You stupid.

[Anonymous No.6158570]

>>6158562
>artist; than
See me after class.

[Anonymous No.6158576]

>>6158570
do you not know how to use a semi colon?
lol...
:)

[Anonymous No.6158588]

>>6158562
Lol, it's that alchemy guy. I'm surprised he uploaded more videos thus having more than 33 videos as he did for a while. I hope he isn't suggesting Surrealism is more alchemical than art created when alchemy was actually more relevant. I always thought it was strange and a great disservice that he'd focus more on surreal emblematic prints when discussing alchemy and veiled secrets of nature and what not rather than the ones where alchemical philosophy is actually more hidden but is more intertwined in the creation yet isn't strictly ABOUT it (Rubens for example). Like him for some stuff, but sometimes he's the scum of Rosicrucian symbolism.

What kind of alchemist would even value expression of the self over perfection, which is an expression of the divine?

[Anonymous No.6158590]

Watch this:
https://vimeo.com/55426796

Why Beauty Matters. About how art was ruined.

[Anonymous No.6158594]

>>6158588
>I hope he isn't suggesting Surrealism is more alchemical than art created when alchemy was actually more relevant.
His passion for emblematic art is pretty clearly expressed in his surrealism videos, but so far as I have seen he hasn't made any correlation between the two.

And based on his commentary, it simply seems to come down to his interest in that particular imagery more than anything. Considering he spent a good portion of his career producing facsimiles of them, it just seems like his subjective passion.

[Anonymous No.6158597]

>>6155830
Not all is lost.

[Anonymous No.6158603]

>>6158590

A little one-sided. I suggest you watch The Shock of the New with Robert Hughes. It is much more nuanced.

[Anonymous No.6158614]

Why has art gotten so good

[Anonymous No.6158617]

>>6158614

Piss Christ is awesome. It reminds me of Turner. No irony.

[Anonymous No.6158637]

>>6158617
Good taste anon

[Anonymous No.6158924]

>>6155830
Art hasn't gotten bad.

Pro tip: that avant garde and post modern shit you see in galleries isn't the art that our period will be known for.

Our era will be known for film, television and rock music, and these have been great over the past 60-70 years. TV is actually at its all time high as we speak, with shows like Mad Men and Better Call Saul delivering a cultural banquet that our forefathers would never have been able to fathom.

[Anonymous No.6158964]

>>6158924
>and rock music
ahahahahahahahahaahahahaha
you mean onkyo, eai and free improvisation

[Anonymous No.6158982]

>>6158924

>Pro tip: that avant garde and post modern shit you see in galleries isn't the art that our period will be known for.
that's quite accurate though a part of the avant-garde that or period will be known far is already exhibited in the galeries. but maybe there will be nothing to remember since our relationship to time, the way avant-garde function now and used to and the quality of their productions gets lower because art has no more role to play than entertain us now.

>TV is art
no, it's an industry
same for cinema and most rock music

[Anonymous No.6159004]

>>6158924
>Better Call Saul
are people actually enjoying this show? it's so lifeless compared to breaking bad.

[Anonymous No.6159019]

>>6158924
this is what reddit actually believes

[Anonymous No.6159040]

>>6158982
>no, it's an industry

art is an industry. get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.6159048]

>>6159040
some is.
not everything.

[Anonymous No.6159049]

>>6158924
>TV is actually at its all time high as we speak

Perhaps this seems true if you never saw TV in the 60s and 70s.

There are no golden ages, anon, just people handing over shekels.

[Anonymous No.6159058]

>>6159048

Same could be said for anything.
anything.

[Anonymous No.6159129]

>>6158310

>Beksinski

My African American brother

[Anonymous No.6159138]

>>6155870
>This leads to art spiraling down a circle jerk where it is only created for other artists and those pretentious enough to pretend they understand.
Why not read up on the development of critical theory before making vague and insubstantial criticisms of modern art?

>deep
>pretentious
You do realise these two words are basically contradictory, right?

[Anonymous No.6159157]

>>6155840
>hating on Bataille and Caligari
Also "then" isn't 50 years ago.

[Anonymous No.6159168]

>>6158431
There are no women on internet. Lad.

[Anonymous No.6159328]

>>6158597
DMT PODCAST

[Anonymous No.6159588]

>>6159129
The problem with beksinski is that his stuff makes you wish that they were something more than paintings.

[Anonymous No.6161273]

>>6155870
actually, from my understanding so don't quote me, a lot of art that is shown in museums and galleries is actually due to the flow of money. Somebody who is rich is setting the standard for what art is art.

[Anonymous No.6161295]

>>6159588
I had to write a paper on three of his works.
The amount of abstract symbolism is off the fucking charts, to me, looking at his works is like glancing at a random page in some morbid picture book.
The text is long gone, but the story itself is still glimpsed.

[Anonymous No.6162315]

>>6155830
>kidstodayboyitellyawut.exe

[Anonymous No.6162323]

>>6155830
Here's the thing I never understand about arguments on these lines: whatever you think of the picture on the right, the picture on the left is a bunch of completely dull shit.

And I *like* classical art. But people always choose the worst examples. It's mind-boggling.

[Anonymous No.6162344]

>>6159040
DERIVATIVE

[Anonymous No.6162465]

>>6161295
Mind repeating yourself here a bit? Sounds very interesting.

[Anonymous No.6162496]

>>6155830
because visual form and aesthetics have been removed in favor of social critiques.

mostly because its more fun to argue that something is racist or not than it is to argue if something is pretty or not.

not saying i like it, but there it is.

[Anonymous No.6162499]

>>6155830
Art is just a degenerate version of appreciating real nature and human form.

[Anonymous No.6163993]

>>6155830
Cultural Marxism.

Anything can and should be deconstructed according to them; from art to culture to society to race.

[Anonymous No.6164009]

>>6162499
plato pls go

[Anonymous No.6164058]

>>6155840
I have not been this infuriated by a post on an imageboard in months.

you are absolutely the worst kind of crypto- reactionary, post-ironic-macho, "metamodernist" DeviantArtwave cancer. you probably read Pitchfork, think the Golden Age of TV is a thing and David Mitchell has literary merit.

keep contributing to the co-optation of the last remaining autonomous spheres by the Culture Industry, you fucking trendslave

[Anonymous No.6164075]

>>6158597
does he do gay porn?

[Anonymous No.6164099]

>>6164075
i'd watch it if he bottomed

[Anonymous No.6164161]

memes are the new form of art
get with the times grandpa

[Anonymous No.6164182]

Why has /lit/ gotten so bad?

[Anonymous No.6164186]

>>6159157
I believe that's part of the joke

[Anonymous No.6164201]

>>6155994
>art

[Anonymous No.6164239]

>>6156625
>finish your stem degree
>>6157081
>This meme started on /pol/, right?

So the truth comes out

Artists are just leftists circle jerking whatever passes as pseudointellectual "statements" trying to stick it to the MAN or whatever is in vogue at the time because they fail at fitting in the same system that supports them

>>6157687
Holy shit

You liberal retards, it was a /biz/ meme. Someone explained how the galleries worked because this exact thread was made over there

Only on /lit/ and in an art thread will someone try to excuse money laundering as some /pol/ conspiracy theory

[Anonymous No.6164247]

>>6164239
>Someone explained how the galleries worked because this exact thread was made over there

oh well if someone said it on 4chan that means we dont need any of this silly logic and reason

[Anonymous No.6164248]

>>6164182
because the best posters are enjoying summer

[Anonymous No.6164271]

>>6164247
I'm not going to search for it but needless to say, it was convincing enough to be handled under scrutiny and for /lit/ to cry about their wasted art degrees and blame it on their scapegoat of choice, which is unsurprisingly /pol/

It's like clockwork at this point

[Anonymous No.6164273]

>>6164058
literally none of those things apply to me. i made the image to suit the taste of a reactionary. they are the audience. bataille is actually a personal favorite. i chose it because it would be really easy for a reactionary to reject for being 'degenerate'

its nice to see my image is so finely tuned to elicit such specific assumptions about who i am or what i do though

[Anonymous No.6164290]

>>6164239
>>6159040
>>6158982
>>6158924

> not developing your own preventative drug for middle and lower-class newborns

> not strategically direct-marketing that drug to physicians

> not using the profits to buy your own drug company

> not selling that company to re-invest in industrial development

> not using the proceeds of your robber-baron wealth to travel Europe, buying some of the most aesthetically pleasing art mankind has ever produced

> not creating a museum out of this art

> not eventually completely outstripping both the Carnegie and Rockefeller families in net worth

/lit/ is so fucking plebian

[Anonymous No.6164301]

>>6155897
>implying every tripfag isn't unbearable cancer

[Anonymous No.6164306]

>>6155916
Of course

/lit/ is full of nonironic ironic New Yorker hipsters

[Anonymous No.6164356]

>>6155830
I like the later.

[Anonymous No.6164383]

>>6158249
This argument becomes moot once you realize that to enjoy say, Courbet, Delacroix or german Renaissance / Mannerism, you also have to understand the historical context and the intentions of the artists / comissioners of said art to fully appreciate the work.

These paintings weren't made solely to be looked at and have a "oh how pretty!" reaction

[Anonymous No.6164389]

>>6164306
I fucking hate New York

[Anonymous No.6164396]

>>6158249
It's really cool when you invent examples to prove your opinions.

If you enjoy renaissance paintings without any understanding of the context, how each author influenced each other and their particular techniques you're just looking at the pretty pictures because they're pretty. Don't demand that people get down to your level.

[Anonymous No.6164410]

>>6158519
This.

Chiaroscuro is amongst the most beautiful techniques in painting (and that's coming from someone whose favourite period in art is first modernism), but there is absolutely no way any faggot who ever spent two minutes with a pencil and a model thinks lighting works like it did for baroque painters

[Anonymous No.6164411]

In order to save the village (modern American culture) it was necessary to destroy the village (the city of New York)

[Anonymous No.6164438]

>>6158519
>>6164410
http://www.webexhibits.org/hockneyoptics/post/grundy7.html
I'm not that guy, but even if the final composition brakes the logic of light the work itself was probably made with a camera obscura, which is pretty much the same as copying a photography. I'm not saying the results are the same, it was probably just a reference and guide over which he took liberties. But there is a strong presence of pre-photographic devices during his time that influenced the style.

[Anonymous No.6164457]

>>6164058
>i am angry for vague reasons i won't bother stating
>you're as bad as this list of unrelated strawmen
>i am a faggot please rape my face

[Anonymous No.6164487]

>>6164389
You and me both, buddy

[Anonymous No.6164490]

>>6164438
Actually, camera obscurae (what is even the plural for that? We just used câmara(s) escura(s), which is portuguese for that in class) were around for quite a while before chiaroscuro became trendy, and while it does distort the light, making the contrast higher, it is very obvious it was being used as a stylistic device, just compare the lighting on baroque / mannerist paintings to the lighting during the renaissance, when camera obscurae (again) became prominent (truth be told, both paintings shown here depended a lot on the imagination of the painter, but still)

[Anonymous No.6164493]

>>6164457
metamodernist detected

[Anonymous No.6165475]

>>6155830
Blame Duchamp

[Anonymous No.6165771]

>>6155840
who removed trout mask replica from the now section

[Anonymous No.6166272]

>>6155858
I've been using it to fall asleep recently.

It's basically literary cough-syrup.

[Anonymous No.6166295]

>>6155830
Stop being a pleb and read the Non-Objective World

[Anonymous No.6168747]

The idea that art would evolve is antithetical to what art is, and the concept of style

Get out Hegelian faggots

[Anonymous No.6168758]

>>6158614
>>6158617

I don't get why people are riled up by this. If you didn't know it was piss and saw it as the giant beautiful four foot photograph it is, it'd be a solemn interesting image

The fact that people judge it based upon what it's composed of is the entire point