/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6370926]

What's with modern art being impenetrable?

[Anonymous No.6370937]

Science already made art obsolete

[Anonymous No.6370941]

>>6370937
The fuck is that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous No.6370945]

Photography made modern realism pretty much pointless. Not to mention there is more the Barnett's painting. No one was doing them at his size and scale. Not to mention it's aesthetically pleasing. Who gives a shit. Hitler was making hotel artwork.

[Anonymous No.6370952]

>>6370941
Cameras bruh.

[Anonymous No.6370953]

>>6370945

>camera's replaced paintings

Is this what they teach you at art history?
For fuck sake that's like saying we can't enjoy bikes anymore because we have cars.

[Anonymous No.6370958]

>>6370941
>Being this dumb
I think Science has made you obsolete

[Anonymous No.6370960]

>>6370945
>Not to mention it's aesthetically pleasing
Good, because it's not.

[Anonymous No.6370962]

Traditionalism and realism was simplistic with straight forward messages that ordinary plebeians could understand, it didn't require any form of intellectual rigor to comprehend and be enjoyed so intellectuals and elitists promoted Modernism as a multilayered intellectual artform which only they could fully appreciate. That's why no one but plebeians today miss realism.

[BillionaireMayor !cAaZk5YM5c No.6370964]

>>6370926
God forbid anyone appreciate minimalism and the aesthetics of simplicity.

Hitler's isn't good. It's pretty easy to tell. His subject matter is dull, technique is nothing of interest to draw the eye. It's just incredibly dull, shows very little technical skill apart from the basics.

I'd much rather hang Newman's painting in my apartment.

[Anonymous No.6370967]

>>6370926
Goddamn Hitler couldn't paint for shit

[Anonymous No.6370971]

>>6370953
Way to strawman. I've never taken art history, I don't even really like art. It's about aesthetics. Realism was done for hundreds of years, cultural shifts happen, realism wasn't a main focus with some groups in the 20s-60s. Don't tell me this doesn't look awesome.

[Anonymous No.6370973]

>>6370953
only homosexuals and women ride bikes this day and age. and If you want to look like a queer at least obey traffic laws.

[Anonymous No.6370974]

>>6370926
modern art puts the emphasis on the reaction of the spectator and less on the technique. It is a flaw as it is too easy to be provocative.

[Anonymous No.6370975]

>>6370962

>modern art is being edgy

This is what you just admitted.

[Anonymous No.6370976]

People make the mistake of thinking art has to be judged based on the technical skill it took to create the piece. In reality, the purpose of art is to have no purpose whatsoever. Create for the sake of creating, and if a style catches on, so be it.

There doesn't have to be any deeper meaning than that.

[Anonymous No.6370979]

>>6370971
wow, its nothing. Id literally do a 360 and get the fuck out of there. at least early modernism had more to look at

[Anonymous No.6370980]

>>6370975
>edgy

Nice meme spook

[Anonymous No.6370981]

>>6370962

>THE PLEBS MUST NEVER KNOW

Brought to you by the guys who defend the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.6370982]

both are degenerate shit, lol. The renaissance was the worst thing that happened to art.

[Anonymous No.6370983]

>>6370926
What's wrong with modern art being ambiguous

[Anonymous No.6370987]

>>6370976
>no purpose whatsoever. Create for the sake of creating, and if a style catches on, so be it.
many things are art in this definition, which is good

>>6370979
>wow, its nothing. Id literally do a 360 and get the fuck out of there. at least early modernism had more to look at


he will tell you that you must stand before the painting to have a chance to get it

[Anonymous No.6370990]

>>6370982
>people devoting themselves to art was the worst thing that happened to art.

Confirmed for not knowing shit about anything.

[Anonymous No.6370995]

"The modernist thirst for originality makes the mediocre artist believe that the secret of originality consists simply in being different."
- Nicolás Gómez Dávil

Summarizes over a century of edgelords.
And to think fuckers like this guy >>6370962 think it's a sign of intellectual superiority

[Anonymous No.6370997]

>>6370987
>many things are art in this definition, which is good.

This is what a lot of people don't understand. Anything can be an artform if you just do it either for the sake of doing it or to express something of yourself.

[Anonymous No.6371000]

>>6370980
>spook
Pure Ideology.

[Anonymous No.6371003]

>>6370975
What's your point? Of course modern art was initially edgy.

>>6370981
Modern art was a creation of the petty-bourgeoisie idiot. The proletariat when democratically given control over art demands simplistic easily understood artforms such as realism.

[Anonymous No.6371005]

God not this thread again

[Anonymous No.6371007]

>>6370995
"I like to criticize new styles because I can't catch on to them and would rather talk about others' works instead of working on my own."
-Nicolas Gomez Davil

[Anonymous No.6371010]

>>6370926
does that house have a camouflage on it?

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6371011]

Post-Modernism is more interesting and relevant than modernism. While anything before Modernism is more relevant than Modernism. Any attempt at reviving old genres is a Post-Modern activity.

[Anonymous No.6371013]

>>6370990
>return to Roman aesthetics instead of the true beauty of the Divine Principle found in early Christian art (and in other traditional forms such as Islamic art/Buddhist art/Maya art/etc)
>Focus on humanism and the "beauty" of the human form rather than inward beauty
>Complete abandonment of European traditional art to the point where it literally does not exist in any way shape or form today

the epitome of degeneracy

[Anonymous No.6371016]

>>6370981
>Socialist realism
>Modern art was repressed in Soviet Russia

You're really fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.6371019]

>>6371013
*tips mitre*

[Anonymous No.6371020]

>>6371007

>ur dumb if u dont like us

You avant-garde leftists are some of the weakest fuckers around to defend your Interior Semiotics crap.
It's all about peer pressure and peer approval with you assholes.
"Oh I guess I should smear my face with shit and call it "Pepe in 1848" ."
You can't even argue why it is valid. Just that your friends or people you like to be friends with dig it.

[Anonymous No.6371023]

>>6371013
>>Focus on humanism and the "beauty" of the human form rather than inward beauty

>Not knowing later romanticism would do this anyway

Sorry no one's making your sophisticated sacred pieces anymore. Maybe in another thousand years it'll catch on again.

[Anonymous No.6371027]

>>6371016

You just mentioned one art form, fuckface.
All the others are willfully 'elitist' ( or rather a bunch of bored upper middle class fags taking it up the ass ) about their shit.

[Anonymous No.6371029]

>>6371020
>it's all about peer pressure and peer approval

Do you know what you're talking about? I'll let you read up on it some before you have to reply again.

>Just that your friends or people you like to be friends with dig it.

Can you provide an objective opinion as to why this makes an art style lesser than any other style?

[Anonymous No.6371033]

>people actually claim that he couldn't paint

[Anonymous No.6371035]

>>6371027
Socialist realism wasn't a form of modern art. Modern art is not associated with proletarian sentiments at all.

[Anonymous No.6371038]

>>6371020
What criterion should art be measured by if not by the expert opinions of others in the field; what if a STEMfag didn't want to be subject to peer review because of MUH FEELS.

[Anonymous No.6371040]

>>6370926
>>6370926
>>6370926
hegel said, art is over. but it really isnt
its over in a sense that art is not about depicting real life objects beautifully like it was a long time.
art is a mere reflection of itself. its a contemplation about the medium and what art is.
thats why it sucks

/thread

de nada

[Anonymous No.6371041]

>>6371023
All art after the renaissance is by default void of meaning (well not truly, there was still pockets of resistance, and even today, I know an icon painter personally who still fasts 40 days before painting, etc), as meaning cannot come from the artist himself. The artist must be inspired.


My only exception is Kandinsky since he was obviously inspired by some higher power and treated his work as a sacred act; it doesn't have to be God.

I'm not going to tell you guys you're wrong for liking something, just that profane art is intrinsically of a lower order. It still pleases me when looking at it, but it doesn't convey any real Truths.

[Anonymous No.6371042]

>>6371029

Stop claiming it's "good" or "intellectually superior" if it's just your gang in charge of the gallery digging it.

Truly, nazi's had a point saying that it's some folks in charge deciding what's "good art".
Now I'm interested in what their agenda is in saying this is good. Because if it's a shitty agenda, it's shitty art.
And it seems to be like it has a shitty agenda.

[Anonymous No.6371045]

>>6371033
a kid could have done a better job tbh

[Anonymous No.6371048]

>>6371038

>art its value is decided by a bunch of self-proclaimed experts

What makes them experts?
Them being Jewish?

Coming from the same people who rage at politics turning increasingly technocratic.

[Anonymous No.6371049]

>>6371040
Hegel clearly wasn't into cinema. Art is alive and well, just not in the US and most of Western Europe.

[Anonymous No.6371060]

>>6371049

>Hegel clearly wasn't into cinema

u wat m8?

[Anonymous No.6371062]

>>6371048
Dude, stop memeing us, it's too much.

[Anonymous No.6371063]

>>6371049
>into cinema.
bergson I believe was, and deleuze for sure (there is a audio course)

[Anonymous No.6371064]

>>6371042
wheras nazi art had no agenda at all and were measured by the masses

[Anonymous No.6371072]

>>6371045
>technical skill is everything in art

You poor child.

>>6371042
>it's some folks in charge deciding what's "good art."

Okay. Who are these elite few?

>>6371041
>All art after the renaissance is by default void of meaning
>no one painted to express anything after the renaissance

Holy shit, what a stupid thing to say.

> I know an icon painter personally who still fasts 40 days before painting
Okay, so how does this make him better than literally anyone else?

[Anonymous No.6371075]

>>6371048
One becomes an expert by extensively studying and understanding the history of Art. Allowing populism to control art would just retard the progression of Art towards its ultimate perfection.

[Anonymous No.6371082]

>art before renaissance

literally ayylmao-core

[Anonymous No.6371095]

>>6371064

Yeah it had an agenda and was shameless in it.
Again, what is the avant-gardist's agenda? Chicks with dicks for president?

>>6371072

Hooked nose menopausal dikes with saggy tits who like to get tortured in the bedroom while their obese husband quotes Hobbes?

[Anonymous No.6371098]

>>6371075

>art majors in charge

Now we are getting somewhere.

[Anonymous No.6371103]

>>6371082
Can someone who knows more about art history explain to me how this kind of art got through without someone saying 'hold on a minute people don't look like this'

Did artists simply not 'know' how to create realistic images with perspective, form, proportion etc.?

[Anonymous No.6371117]

>>6371075

Art majors confirmed for allies of the class system.

No wonder Mao BTFO those fags.

[Anonymous No.6371121]

>>6370962
>art needs to be decipherable
You suck m8

[Anonymous No.6371126]

>>6371103
They had the skills, but christfags got mad when their saints resembled normal people too much.

[Anonymous No.6371127]

>>6371103
To put it very simply, attempting to do art realistically was a fairly new thing in that time. Painting wasn't something that you normally set out to devote yourself to, so normally an abbey would have a painter that would train while he was there and would paint biblical scenes.

Plus there wasn't a very big demand that the art look particularly "good", so long as it depicted a scene.

[Anonymous No.6371139]

>>6371095
>Again, what is the avant-gardist's agenda? Chicks with dicks for president?
I dunno try reading some of their manifestos; from the Manifesto of the Futurist:

1. Destroy the cult of the past, the obsession with the ancients, pedantry and academic formalism.
2. Totally invalidate all kinds of imitation.
3. Elevate all attempts at originality, however daring, however violent.
4. Bear bravely and proudly the smear of “madness” with which they try to gag all innovators.
5. Regard art critics as useless and dangerous.
6. Rebel against the tyranny of words: “Harmony” and “good taste” and other loose expressions which can be used to destroy the works of Rembrandt, Goya, Rodin...
7. Sweep the whole field of art clean of all themes and subjects which have been used in the past.
8. Support and glory in our day-to-day world, a world which is going to be continually and splendidly transformed by victorious Science.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6371141]

>>6371095

You are blind. Walking around in society without taking in the idea of society itself.

[Anonymous No.6371145]

It isn't.

[Anonymous No.6371149]

>>6371145
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.6371151]

>>6371011
>any attempt at reviving old genres is a postmodernist activity
You're going to have to explain this one.

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6371153]

>>6371151

It is post-modern by definition. The boredom of the ideals of Modernism lead others to explore outside the bounds of it. It's Post-Modern.

[Anonymous No.6371158]

>>6371141

Or maybe one has had enough and decides that this isn't enough?

Also

>unironically reading Foucault

[Anonymous No.6371159]

>>6371153
Postmodern is a very particular reaction to modernism, not any possible one. Reviving genres or mediums can be perfectly tied to a modern metanarrative.

[Anonymous No.6371160]

>>6371145
I still prefer the left side. get fucked /v/

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6371163]

>>6371158

No, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>6371159

Things change. Post-Modern means much more, casually, than it did before.

[Anonymous No.6371164]

plebs don't regard visual art as another kind of text, it' just muh pretty things to look at for them

[Anonymous No.6371169]

>>6371163

Typical /lit/ pretentiousness

>ur dumb
>u dont know what ur talking about
>let me just return to my nest of self-satisfied smugness

You guys claim you read philosophy, but you can't even fucking argue properly.

[Anonymous No.6371173]

>>6371164

>text

Jesus christ, this board is neckdeep in poststructuralist hocum.

Yeah sure bro, you got skills reading other 'texts'.

Oh wait that should have been Other with capital "O".

[Anonymous No.6371182]

>>6371173
your mom should have been with capital "O" last night, you buttblasted philistine

[Anonymous No.6371186]

>>6371182

>neener neener

Could you be anymore leftist, champion of the proletariat?

[Anonymous No.6371190]

>>6371149
>>6371160
Philistines

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6371193]

>>6371173

>not being post-structuralist

What's stopping you, anon?

>>6371169

It's easier to say you have no clue what you're talking about, then explain how, why, and to what degree you are wrong, to which you would disagree regardless.

[Anonymous No.6371200]

>>6371193

Does it take that much effort really?
You took your valuable patrician time to waste on a Taiwanese shadow puppet board, so you might as well say why.

[Anonymous No.6371201]

>>6371186
Modernism wasn't a "leftist" movement in any meaningful sense; it was reactionary and had fascistic tendencies as a result of its petty-bourgeois ideologists.

[Anonymous No.6371202]

>>6370926
Modern art is impenetrable because it has to exclude the plebs in order to feel superior to them. Anyone intelligent enough knows that it is of no value, but in any case many play along with the game to feel superior to those that don't "get it." When art appreciation transferred from the realm of the aristocracy to that of anyone in the very late 19th and early 20th century, it lost its appeal to certain artists and curators. They felt their raison d'etre was being challenged as just about any old prole who could cobble together 2 pence could access a book of Renaissance painters, or whatever it was. So they struck out against mass appreciation; now it was only those in on the game that could separate themselves from the rest, and therefore give their opinions or their art a defining difference that the lower classes could not understand. Modern art remains extremely snooty, exclusionary, and restricted to a new kind of 'art aristocracy.'

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6371208]

>>6371200

Well, you see no shame associated with putting Hitler above anyone Jewish, so it's like, why should I even try?

[Anonymous No.6371211]

>>6371201

this. i can't get why this is now being appropriated by commies.

[Anonymous No.6371218]

>>6370926
Again, why does that house have a fucking cammo on it.

[Anonymous No.6371224]

What's eerie is that there are never any people in Hitler's paintings.

[Anonymous No.6371243]

You really need to watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrvA3nv0Py4

[Anonymous No.6371275]

>>6371163
>Post-Modern means much more, casually, than it did before.
Just because the term has been treated like a cheap whore doesn't mean that it has changed. Edgy teens reading Nietzsche doesn't mean they can change the meaning of his works, americans shitting on post-structuralism doesn't mean it has to be that way. That's even sort of a point of post-modernism, the standard interpretation doesn't change the original.

[Anonymous No.6371812]

Why should artist spend days and days on one realistic painting when he can just take a picture and have even better result? Art must move transform as the world does.

And to ignorant people here thinking that modern painters are hacks and have skills of a child pic related (Picasso's early work)

[Anonymous No.6371846]

>>6370945
photography a shit

[Anonymous No.6371858]

>>6370971
That room looks boring as fuck

[Anonymous No.6371876]

The appreciation of modern art is akin to everyone's appreciation of the emporer's clothes in that parable about the emporer's clothes.

[Anonymous No.6371884]

>>6371876
Huh, never heard that one before.
Mind expanding? This could be a very interesting analogy.

[Anonymous No.6371898]

>>6370962
you literally just admitted that people only pretend to be interested in looking at blue squares because normal people don't do it (because they're not retarded)

[Anonymous No.6371901]

>>6371812
>days and days

More like years and years. Da Vinci left like, five paintings in his lifetime. Meanwhile Picasso made several new paintings every day.

It's all just an industry, nowadays. It's about money. Either making a quick buck or to move illegal money from one place to another without anyone noticing.

>I'm just gonna pay $10,000,000 for this childrens drawing to my friend the mafia, uhm, I mean, Mr. Art lover.

[Anonymous No.6371903]

>>6371010
it's a tank house

[Anonymous No.6371907]

>>6371901
Hmm, that's an interesting perspective.

[Anonymous No.6371910]

Why was Hitler so bad with perspective? This one is much better than the stairway one but the floor is compeltely capricious, the windows aren't in the same line, the door that's closer is tiny, the roof tiles make no sense at all and would be better without them at all, the details in the wall are huge considering that the floor is so small you don't differentiate bricks, and so on. He was very bad at realism.

[Anonymous No.6371926]

>>6371041
Go fuck yourself, christfag.

[Anonymous No.6371937]

>>6371042
Did you know, Goebbels loved primitivism and that nearly became the officially sanctioned art of the Third Reich but for Hitler's fascination with bed and breakfast room paintings?

[Anonymous No.6371967]

>>6371901
>Meanwhile Picasso made several new paintings every day.
And he trashed most of those. He used to say that anyone can make a fake Picasso, even Picasso.

[Anonymous No.6371998]

"These countless installations and performances are merely compromising with the state of things, and with all the past forms of art history. Raising originality, banality and nullity to the level of values or even to perverse aesthetic pleasure. Of course, all of this mediocrity claims to transcend itself by moving art to a second, ironic level. But it is just as empty and insignificant on the second as on the first level. The passage to the aesthetic level salvages nothing; on the contrary, it is mediocrity squared. It claims to be null -- 'I am null! I am null!' -- and it truly is null.

[...]

The flip side of this duplicity is, through the bluff on nullity, to force people a contrario to give it all some importance and credit under the pretext that there is no way it could be so null, that it must be hiding something. Contemporary art makes use of this uncertainty, of the impossibility of grounding aesthetic value judgments and speculates on the guilt of those who do not understand it or who have not realized that there is nothing to understand."

[Anonymous No.6372007]

>>6371926
But I'm a perennialist

>>6371072
>Holy shit, what a stupid thing to say.

Exterior emotions are not equivalent to inward truth; profane art is devoid of any higher meaning and is both useless and destructive.

[Anonymous No.6372016]

>>6372007
God isn't real and spirituality is bunk.

[Anonymous No.6372039]

>>6372016
Oh wow, stop the fucking presses everyone. I think it's time for us bow down to this gentleman here, who alone figured out 10000 years of human history with his enlightened anonymous post.

[Anonymous No.6372046]

>>6372039
God still isn't real, bud.

[Anonymous No.6372052]

>>6372046
Your Eyes Aren't Real, Friend.

[Anonymous No.6372057]

>>6371013
fuck this fucking board. yeah you're super contrarian and cool

[Anonymous No.6372084]

>>6371000

Yes, it is pure ideology. What you gonna do about it?

[Anonymous No.6372086]

bunch of fucking rubes in this thread honestly

[Anonymous No.6372137]

>>6370926
dude look at the converging lines in the foreground tiles, whole painting is flat, there's no economy. everything about it reeks as a desperate portfolio piece.
the blue rectangles are even worse

[Foucault !!8WvUZxvX53M No.6372140]

>>6371042

[Anonymous No.6372165]

Reminder that LIBERALS think that THIS is math. Thumbs up if you want to bring back 2*12=24 instead of this NONSENSE

[Anonymous No.6372169]

>>6371041
Very observant anon, the sacred AND the propane

[Anonymous No.6372190]

you'll losers dont even read adorno

[Anonymous No.6372206]

Art reflects society.

[Anonymous No.6372227]

>>6372190
Some of us do, and even better members of the FS like Benjamin. Some even know how tied to their time their ideas were and how superior posterior authors like Heidegger and Gadamer expanded aesthetics in much more interesting ways than "nah, this isn't reeeaal art, you can't revolutionize shit with this" and "you can feel this shit, Imma invent a name and justification and push it till I die".

[Anonymous No.6372238]

>>6372206
I loled, wannabe.
Art is part of society, but for it to fully reflect it artist should have a superhuman understanding of everything that's going on. While they respond to factors around them and you can understand what they saw of their time, they are just people trying to communicate feelings. Some of them may even isolate themselves from their context and that doesn't take away any merit from their work.

[Anonymous No.6372339]

>>6371117
Meritocracy is the class system? Good.

[Anonymous No.6372362]

>>6372165

Is that Lacan's attempt at math?

[Anonymous No.6372384]

>>6370953
Photography didn't replace anything, it just took away the burden of realism from painting.

That, aligned with the autonomy of art that began with romanticism, the urban growth, scientific knowledge boom of the early century (non-Euclidian math and general relativity, specially), WWI and the general subjectivity becoming the mainstream way of thought, actually.

But of course a faggot like you wouldn't accept none of these arguments

[Anonymous No.6372414]

>>6371145
Oh my god, you suck!

[Anonymous No.6372420]

>>6371103
They COULD try, but it was a sin to depict saints and holy people realistically

A little older than the painting you're quoting, but

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

[Anonymous No.6372437]

>>6370926
>tries to make realistic art and fails
>does not try to make realistic art

[Anonymous No.6372438]

>>6371103
You have a time limit with a fresco, it comes out as good as you can before it dries. Experience really shows in those conditions.

[Anonymous No.6372501]

>>6371186
Futurist, the first modernist vanguard, was a self-declared fascist movement

[Anonymous No.6372523]

>>6371275
>Just because the term has been treated like a cheap whore doesn't mean that it has changed.
second this

[Anonymous No.6372532]

>>6372501
I loled, how shameful of me.

[Anonymous No.6372548]

>>6371103
Most art was used to depict stories, like battles and saints, not to look realistically (or elsly put, they sacrificed realism for story)

You can actually go and try to draw something like a battle in a realistic 3D scene, it's incredibly difficult if you want to convey everything that's happening.

[Anonymous No.6372561]

>>6372057
This isn't an isolated opinion

[Anonymous No.6372618]

>>6371201
>fascistic tendencies

Can you describe them?

[Anonymous No.6372630]

>>6370926
The one on the right is objectively better.

[Anonymous No.6372643]

>>6370926
What on earth has that got to do with 'liberals?

[Anonymous No.6372649]

>>6372643
Neo-Nazis and ultra-right loons believe if you disagree with the Third Reich you're a liberal.

[Anonymous No.6372676]

>>6372618
http://counterlightsrantsandblather1.blogspot.ca/2009/07/beautiful-ideas-which-kill-futurism-and.html

[Anonymous No.6372936]

>>6370926
>conflating contemporary and postmodern art with modernism
>conflating all of those with liberalism
>hitler's art not shit

[Anonymous No.6372982]

>>6370926
the painting on the left obviously required more talent/work, but definitely has flaws.

the one on the right doesn't necessarily have any obvious flaws (unless you consider minimalism inherently flawed), so technically it's good, for what it is.

[Anonymous No.6373007]

Art generally is pointless. If you really have something to say, write a book. Being a painter to try and make a point is just hiding behind a layer of security. You never have to commit to anything. Hitler's painting looks like something I could probably do if I spent enough time to be honest.

[Anonymous No.6373015]

pre-modern art is impenetrable. modern art is the opposite

[Anonymous No.6373021]

>>6370926
I can't wait until shit like this is laughed at a couple hundred years from now.

People will compare us to the artists of even further in the past and have no idea how we succeeded them. They will be baffled. Far enough down the line, it may even be believed that we counted AD as we did BC; backwards

It's asinine horseshit that makes an open mockery of the word "art".
>Well, like, ya know, man, art is just, like, subject n' stuff, ya know? It's just like, dude, what does this make me *feel*?
Makes me feel like I'm embarassed for the "artists". Have they no honor? Have they no respect?

Get the fuck out of here with the paintings that divide one solid color into different sections via another color. Fuck the paintings where some asshole tipped over his paints and let them spill down a canvas in neglect.

This shit, though, looks pretty cool:
>>6370971
Looks like an early Nokia cell phone's camera trying to interpret the dark room it's in. I actually thought it was a shitty quality picture that was just enlarged -- and I was unimpressed -- until I paid more attention

That would be pretty neat to see in real life

[Anonymous No.6373030]

>>6370926
Hitler was an idiot who applied to an art school instead of a school of architecture.

That being said, he was known for having an extreme talent with architecture. He could draw buildings from memory having only seen them once. Probably had autism.

[Anonymous No.6373046]

>>6372982
Not obvious to me.

[Anonymous No.6373052]

>>6372982
Barely takes no talent to learn how to paint that picture on the left. Any one with 2 months off could learn how to paint like that.

[Anonymous No.6373056]

>>6373046
>>6373052
alright, but i could make the one on the right in thirty seconds

[Anonymous No.6373066]

>>6373056

Why should time be relevant to it at all? Taking ages on something doesn't necessarily give it more value. I'm not really into art at all but I don't know why a painting of a house is any better than baseless colours.

[Anonymous No.6373069]

>>6373056
see?

[Anonymous No.6373086]

>>6373069
Took you 4 minutes and it sucks. Also, do you know how large the portraits are he paints on?

[Anonymous No.6373094]

>>6373021
>>Well, like, ya know, man, art is just, like, subject n' stuff, ya know? It's just like, dude, what does this make me *feel*?

this literally never shows up in art discussion

>Get the fuck out of here with the paintings that divide one solid color into different sections via another color. Fuck the paintings where some asshole tipped over his paints and let them spill down a canvas in neglect.

neither of these come close to describing what modern art actually is

[Anonymous No.6373095]

Will we ever live in a world where people have abandoned the silly notion of equating art with good.

I ask rhetorically, of course.

[Anonymous No.6373107]

>>6373069
the one on the right is actually paint on canvas

[Anonymous No.6373111]

>>6373095
You state, rather. Don't forget proper punctuation.

[Anonymous No.6373116]

>>6370926
>"Hitler is a fucking shitty painter"
>it's a watercolour

[Anonymous No.6373120]

>>6373066
see
>>6373052
>Any one with 2 months off could learn how to paint like that
that's why i said that
and time is still relevant to some degree, great art can't be created in twenty seconds with no training.
this is exactly why we don't create are like pic related anymore. in america, it is far too expensive and time consuming to learn to make art like this, so we trick people into thinking contemporary art is good. that way we can still have art but not have to go through the difficulty of learning and training.

[Anonymous No.6373125]

>>6373007
>If you really have something to say, write a boo

except if the art/idea doesn't translate to words as well as it would any other medium

[Anonymous No.6373132]

>>6373120
>great art can't be created in twenty seconds with no training.

what's stopping it?

>so we trick people into thinking contemporary art is good

do you

[Anonymous No.6373147]

>>6373111
I thought rhetorical questions ended with a period.

[Anonymous No.6373148]

>>6373132
>what's stopping it?
quality

[Anonymous No.6373157]

>>6373148
quality has nothing to do with art

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6373159]

>>6373086
>>6373107
I could do it if given the paints and canvas.
Both' 'em

[Anonymous No.6373161]

>>6373147
Well ya' thought wrong, didn't ya'?

[Anonymous No.6373162]

>>6373161
Mayhaps I did.

[spanish flu 1942 !B0ucqcFQ7M No.6373165]

Are video games a better medium for art than paintings or cinema? It involves the actual person

[Anonymous No.6373166]

>>6373159
but you couldn't since they're already done

[Anonymous No.6373171]

>>6371202
THIS.

MODERN ART IS VULGAR. A COMMON

COMMON ARGUMENT AGAINST RENAISSANCE PAINTERS: REALISM. RELIGIOUS DEPICTIONS ARE OF THE SUBLIME. ARE YOU SAYING THAT 'THE PIETA' IS 'REALIST'? ABSURD CLAIM! RELIGIOUS DEPICTIONS ARE NOT OF THIS WORLD-THEY ARE ABOVE IT. HENCE THEIR AESTHETIC ENLIGHTENING QUALITIES.

[Anonymous No.6373173]

>>6373157

[Anonymous No.6373174]

>>6373165
Good Video Games aren't art, and I don't say that to knock them.

[Anonymous No.6373176]

>>6373165
I don't think so for multiple reasons

[Anonymous No.6373182]

>>6373157
i didn't say art can't be created in twenty seconds, i said great art can't be created in twenty seconds

[Anonymous No.6373184]

>>6373171
Forgot your autism name tag, Rei?

[Anonymous No.6373187]

>>6373184
THAT IS NOT I.
I AM A HIGHLY STONED (NO PUN) ADVOCATE OF RENAISSANCE ART.

[Anonymous No.6373190]

>>6371202
>Modern art is impenetrable because it has to exclude the plebs in order to feel superior to them. Anyone intelligent enough knows that it is of no value, but in any case many play along with the game to feel superior to those that don't "get it."

this whole argument is to make you feel superior to those who you think (falsely) are trying to elevate themselves above 'plebs'. you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing artists of doing except that the artists aren't even doing what you say they are doing, so really this is just an exercise in pure wankery.

>Modern art remains extremely snooty, exclusionary, and restricted to a new kind of 'art aristocracy.'

it really says something about you that you think there are no books that have ever been published on modern art

[Anonymous No.6373194]

>>6373187
Well if you don't shut up I'd appreciate if someone stoned you to death.

[Anonymous No.6373200]

>>6373182
ok so you are conflating 'quality' with 'greatness'? are you really just saying "great art can't be created in twenty seconds because it would lack greatness"?

you're really going to have to elaborate. i'm not sure you know much about art

[Anonymous No.6373201]

>>6370945
Your argument is that it has size and scale and is aesthetically pleasing. You then denounce HItler's painting by calling it 'hotel artwork', which means precisely nothing. You literally repeated a word twice by using a synonym, the word corresponding to nothing but the blue block being larger, said 'it looks nice' in different wording, and got angry at a painting without even trying to explain what is bad about it. You are actually a worse art critic than OP, which I didn't think I'd see in the first three posts, given his level of sophistication.

[Anonymous No.6373205]

>>6370976
>Create for the sake of creating, and if a style catches on, so be it.
do you think a style will catch on from the turds in my toilet

[Anonymous No.6373222]

>>6373194

WHY SUCH HATRED? SUCH ANIMOSITY?
IF YOU HAD EMBRACED RICH RENAISSANCE ART, YOU WOULD REALIZE THE CENTRAL ROLE THAT LOVE AND BEAUTY PLAYS IN ELEVATING THE SOUL.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.6373239]

>>6373166
It's a forgery in the first place anyway.

[Anonymous No.6373252]

>>6373200
>so you are conflating 'quality' with 'greatness'
yeah, i guess so. maybe i shouldn't be, "greatness" is meaningless
anywhere in my posts you see the word great or whatever replace it with quality

[Anonymous No.6373285]

I don't get how people who preach "death of the author" care so much about what painter painted what

[Anonymous No.6373306]

>>6370937

[Anonymous No.6373332]

>>6373306
Sorry, there were a few posts I forgot to quote.

>>6371926
>>6372016
>>6372046

[Chipstopher Colubus !Vu3GKcozRY No.6373347]

Not enough crunch

[Anonymous No.6373372]

>>6371082
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/pompeii/9848646/Pompeii-exhibition-at-the-British-Museum-glorious-pictures-from-frescoes-to-mosaics.html

I hope you choke on your ignorance

[Anonymous No.6373382]

>>6372084

[Anonymous No.6373404]

>>6370926
The context of Hitlers art propels it past even the best Rothko. Every other painting just feels cheap in comparison.

[Anonymous No.6373412]

>>6370926
Sigh. It's not. If you understand the basics of pop art and abstraction then you can look and understand almost anything. It's just because you didn't bother looking at Wikipedia and you don't know anyone who actually enjoys talking about visual art.

[Anonymous No.6373818]

>>6372649
There's some truth to that though.