Art Thread pt. 2

[Anonymous No.7122217]

Image limit reached in previous thread; continued here.

Someone requested more Manet.

[Anonymous No.7122222]

This is how I imagine Lorca, fucking about with a guitar, pretending he was a Gypsy.

[Anonymous No.7122232]

manet's execution looks like a bad shoop or a buggy 3d game.

[Anonymous No.7122241]

>>7122232
Then what would you say about Goya?

[Anonymous No.7122245]

I love me some naïve art.

[Anonymous No.7122254]

[Anonymous No.7122258]

"Kosmos" was amazing. Here's another fine Chashnik.

[Anonymous No.7122275]

>>7122241
propaganda/10
Napoleon aka the Emperor did noffin

[Anonymous No.7122276]

>>7122217

[Anonymous No.7122279]

[Anonymous No.7122284]

[Anonymous No.7122285]

[Anonymous No.7122287]

[Anonymous No.7122288]

Wait why is this on /lit/ and not /ic/?

[Anonymous No.7122289]

[Anonymous No.7122297]

[Anonymous No.7122300]

[Anonymous No.7122305]

[Anonymous No.7122308]

>>7122288
Because paintings are closely related to literature. This was touched upon in the previous thread. Besides, /lit/ is the most intellectual subreddit on 4chan and people here will have the best taste.

>>7122285
>>7122232
Were you the one who posted cave paintings in the previous thread? Great stuff.

[Anonymous No.7122310]

[Anonymous No.7122312]

[Anonymous No.7122314]

I'm loving these threads by the way.

[Anonymous No.7122315]

[Anonymous No.7122318]

[Anonymous No.7122324]

[Anonymous No.7122327]

We need some more abstract art.

[Anonymous No.7122329]

[Anonymous No.7122330]

[Anonymous No.7122332]

>>7122329
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernward_Doors

[Anonymous No.7122333]

[Anonymous No.7122337]

[Anonymous No.7122338]

[Anonymous No.7122339]

I am the last poet of the village,
The plank bridge is modest in its songs.
I am standing for the farewell mass
Of the birch trees incensing with their foliage.

The candle of the waxen flesh
Will burn away with a golden flame,
And the moon's wooden clock
Will wheeze my twelfth hour.

On the blue field's track
Soon an iron guest will appear.
Oats, poured with the dawn,
Will he reap, with a black hollow of a hand.

Lifeless, in a stranger's grasp,
My songs will die in your presence!
But the ears of oats like horses
Will mourn for their old master.

The wind will take up their neighing, eternally
Celebrating the mass dance.
Soon, soon the wooden clock
Will wheeze my twelfth hour.

[Anonymous No.7122342]

[Anonymous No.7122352]

Why am i the only one posting good stuff.

[Anonymous No.7122354]

>>7122327
Na, we have had more than enough of it.

[Anonymous No.7122358]

>>7122352
It takes a while for these threads to take off. Stop bitching, post more.

Based H.H.

[Anonymous No.7122365]

[Anonymous No.7122367]

Some more from The Slav Epic.

[Anonymous No.7122380]

[Anonymous No.7122406]

Kuniyoshi was badass.

[Anonymous No.7122410]

[Anonymous No.7122416]

[Anonymous No.7122418]

[Anonymous No.7122421]

[Anonymous No.7122426]

[Anonymous No.7122432]

[Anonymous No.7122434]

>>7122297
sorcery

[Anonymous No.7122437]

[Anonymous No.7122440]

[Anonymous No.7122442]

>>7122434
pleb pls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lucida

[Anonymous No.7122447]

>>7122434
>>7122297

Disgusting tbh.

[Anonymous No.7122451]

[Anonymous No.7122464]

>>7122447
Why?
Have you no taste?

[Anonymous No.7122477]

>>7122288
Because /ic/ is for rubbish desktop wallpapers and waifu drawings.

[Anonymous No.7122484]

here's a haphazard collection of art i've saved over the years
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/2m61mzmt333q1/art

[Anonymous No.7122487]

>>7122464
It is well-made, but senseless, ugly and immoral.

[Anonymous No.7122508]

>>7122484
This is great, but... any chance of making it all available as a single file?

[Anonymous No.7122516]

[Anonymous No.7122523]

>>7122508
gosh it'll cost me a a couple dollars but since im stellar guy, why not

just give me a couple of minutes and ill post a new link

[Anonymous No.7122534]

>>7122523
Oh man, you are a real human bean, thank you.

[Anonymous No.7122550]

>>7122284
>>7122287

Thanks for introducing me to Ligare.

[Anonymous No.7122556]

[Anonymous No.7122558]

[Anonymous No.7122561]

[Anonymous No.7122587]

If the artist and painting information isn't in the filename could you please post it in your text? Example:

Number 14, 1960
Mark Rothko
Oil on canvas

[Anonymous No.7122606]

[Anonymous No.7122609]

[Anonymous No.7122620]

will we see the end of painting in our lifetimes bros? i don't see how it can sustain itself against a full-fledged cinema, or even a rudimentary VR system

[Anonymous No.7122628]

[Anonymous No.7122657]

Randegg in the snow with ravens
Otto Dix

[Anonymous No.7122664]

Lighthouse hill
Edward Hopper

[Anonymous No.7122665]

>>7122620
I'm sure you know that is nonsense, because painting does not aim merely for accuracy. Painting =/= Hyperrealism.
One need only look at a renaissance or mannerist painting and absorb the colors, the expressions on the faces to discard such notions. You take one look at Pontorno's Deposition and you'll discover that you have Stendhal syndrome.

[Anonymous No.7122668]

I'm going to post some photos by a Carol Garcia Martinez. I came across his work via his posts on /p/ and became somewhat obsessed with checking his website for updates. Last time i checked, it was down. So in honour of him I'll upload what i have.

[Anonymous No.7122672]

Carol Garcia Martinez, 2/6

[Anonymous No.7122677]

3/6

[Anonymous No.7122681]

4/6

[Anonymous No.7122695]

>>7122534
fuck my life let me never use mediafire again

it's uploading now, about an hour away

[Anonymous No.7122698]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAVyKDDsM3s

These two go hand in hand.

[Anonymous No.7122701]

5/6

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7122703]

>>7122288
Because /pol/

[Anonymous No.7122706]

6

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7122716]

>>7122587
If it's not in the file name how do you expect us to do a reverse image search on google until we post them.

[Anonymous No.7122727]

>>7122484
>>7122534
sorry pal it is well and truly kaput

here's something that'll help w the original link though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI-OZmEZfGI

[Anonymous No.7122732]

>>7122620
Painting has its place if only for the greater control it allows.

I think I prefer contemporary photography to art though for what it allows people the capture. For example in pic related, the wear, chiping, and bleeding of the paint and the texture of it all is almost impossible to achieve in painting. Beyond it's aesthetic qualities it's a simple framing of reality and its flow of time. It has an interesting narrative simply for existing that each element contributes to.

[Anonymous No.7122735]

>>7122732
posting some more

[Anonymous No.7122737]

>>7122695
>>7122727

No worries, man. You tried. I really appreciate the effort.

[Anonymous No.7122740]

>>7122735

[Anonymous No.7122742]

>>7122740

[Anonymous No.7122744]

>>7122742

[Anonymous No.7122748]

>>7122744

[Anonymous No.7122753]

>>7122735
>>7122740
bretty gud

[Anonymous No.7122755]

[Anonymous No.7122765]

[Anonymous No.7122774]

>>/lit/

[Anonymous No.7122786]

>>7122755
pretty funny

[Anonymous No.7122803]

These threads have already inspired me a lot in my writing

Thanks based anons who post sick pics of art

[Anonymous No.7122821]

>>7122406
fucking word, this one's great

[Anonymous No.7122824]

[Anonymous No.7122825]

>>7122824

[Anonymous No.7122827]

>>7122825

[Anonymous No.7122846]

>>7122803
I'm very glad to hear that because that was my intention when I made them. After seeing Rodin's sculptures up close and being a fan of Rilke who was his secretary (I love the poem Archaïscher Torso Apollos and the story behind it) I felt a rush of blood to my head. I wanted to write and I needed some more beautiful art to fuel this creative process.

>>7122727
Hey, I found out I can download a whole folder in a .zip file so I'm doing that. Enjoying your baroque collection atm, as you can see.

[Anonymous No.7122860]

Currin

[Anonymous No.7122863]

[Anonymous No.7122868]

[Anonymous No.7122874]

>>7122418
>>7122421
>>7122426
>>7122432
>>7122437

I have not seen these before. Very gruesome.

[Anonymous No.7122875]

[Anonymous No.7122878]

>>7122846
glad my autism has benefited the world in some small way :)

hope you like matisse btw, there's a shitload of his in there

[Anonymous No.7122880]

[Anonymous No.7122885]

[Anonymous No.7122891]

[Anonymous No.7122902]

[Anonymous No.7122907]

kneffel

[Anonymous No.7122908]

>>7122860

[Anonymous No.7122912]

[Anonymous No.7122914]

[Anonymous No.7122918]

[Anonymous No.7122919]

[Anonymous No.7122922]

>>7122908

[Anonymous No.7122926]

shaver

[Anonymous No.7122930]

[Anonymous No.7122935]

wow good thread for a change, noice

[Anonymous No.7122936]

[Anonymous No.7122943]

kirkham

[Anonymous No.7122947]

I can feel the crisp air in my lungs just looking at this one.

[Anonymous No.7122948]

[Anonymous No.7122949]

[Anonymous No.7122951]

[Anonymous No.7122956]

tooker

[Anonymous No.7122962]

[Anonymous No.7122965]

[Anonymous No.7122966]

>go to an art museum for the first time in years for an impressionist art exhibition.
>take the shitty audio guide just so I don't look suspicious not giving it back at the end.
>completely packed. The paintings I want to see the most have crowds of people.
>look at Sisleys, Pissarros, and lesser Monets and Renoirs while waiting.
>The moment you get into the painting people inch up behind you with the hope that you will soon leave and the thought that it's rude to spend 3 minutes or more looking at well known Manet.
>Just spend the time getting absorbed into the paintings easily available and ignoring the half I was hoping to see up close.

[Anonymous No.7122970]

[Anonymous No.7122972]

Favorite Genre Painters?

Mine are Homer and Eastman Johnson.

[Anonymous No.7122976]

negron

[Anonymous No.7122981]

[Anonymous No.7122983]

[Anonymous No.7122987]

[Anonymous No.7122991]

[Anonymous No.7122993]

tanning

[Anonymous No.7122995]

[Anonymous No.7122999]

>>7122327
Love Kandinsky

[Anonymous No.7123001]

[Anonymous No.7123005]

[Anonymous No.7123010]

>>7122297
talented and uninspired

[Anonymous No.7123016]

contarino

[Anonymous No.7123022]

>>7123010
>>7122297
it's truly dreadful

[Anonymous No.7123026]

[Anonymous No.7123030]

[Anonymous No.7123032]

[Anonymous No.7123038]

[Anonymous No.7123084]

>>7122966
Sorry, man, that sure feels bad. But let me ask you something: if you pay the ticket, can you stay as long as you want that day? I mean, if there's a crowd stopping you from going from one painting to another, admiring the works you came for, can't you grit your teeth and endure it, stay as long as you need, even if it takes 45 or more minutes to absorb that sweet Manet in the corner?

I haven't been to many exhibitions, mostly because there aren't many good ones in my hometown, and my feet start to hurt real bad after walking for a while, so I'm interested. I'd like to know what can one do in a difficult situation like this, in case I ever get into one.

"Is it not worth suffering for great art?" is, I guess, what I'm asking here.

[Anonymous No.7123088]

[Anonymous No.7123104]

[Anonymous No.7123353]

>>7123084
Yeah it's mostly my fault and just me whining about social anxiety. I think it's also a matter of if I did grit my teeth and endure it would the experience have been any more enjoyable or would I have let other things distract me. Maybe I just don't like art enough if that's the case.

There were many paintings that I saw for the first time though that I'm glad I spent the time to get lost in. This painting for example I haven't found an adequate image of online.

[Anonymous No.7123423]

[Anonymous No.7123559]

[Anonymous No.7123641]

>>7123353
This was great as well.

[Anonymous No.7123682]

>>7122908
giantess fetish?

[Anonymous No.7123754]

I rarely see Matisse posted in these threads

[Anonymous No.7123758]

[Anonymous No.7123768]

[Anonymous No.7123778]

>>7122217
The dude in the first thread posted this diptych without the first part for some reason.

[Anonymous No.7123864]

>>7122484
Thanks a lot.

[Anonymous No.7124724]

>>7123030
>>7123032
>>7123038
I despise nature, i wish I had a space suit

[Anonymous No.7124733]

[Anonymous No.7124740]

>>7124733
He's a big guy.

[Anonymous No.7124746]

>>7124740
for you

[Anonymous No.7124747]

>>7123778
Fucking goyim, always giving us chosen people an issue.

[Anonymous No.7125623]

[Anonymous No.7125644]

[Anonymous No.7125646]

[Anonymous No.7125687]

Why do so many american artists have such god awful style after the 40s? 50s?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7125723]

>>7125687
I like Eyvind Earle.

[Anonymous No.7125729]

>>7122327
That's not art.

[Anonymous No.7125737]

>>7125729
your post is art

[Anonymous No.7125754]

>>7122587
These rothko paintings are not art but mere experiments in art.
They are provocationsand people only claim they like them because they think they should and dont actually have any opinions on art worthy of notice.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7125764]

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7125766]

[Anonymous No.7125767]

>>7123768
My little bro paints prettier paintings.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7125768]

[Anonymous No.7125769]

>>7122332
I recall my art teacher joking that the guy who sculpted that had never seen a naked woman, as her titties seemed to be coming out of her shoulders.

[Anonymous No.7125770]

>>7123778
Thanks.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.7125771]

[Anonymous No.7125774]

>>7125754
Yep, like the retards spending 30 minutes staring at an empty canvas...

[Anonymous No.7125785]

>>7125646
The clouds remind me of google deep dream.

[Anonymous No.7126113]

>>7122846
>>7122484
well fucking lol it uploaded after all

if you or anyone else is still interested here's the bulk download link http://www.mediafire.com/download/dpsso4gwbsqd775/art.rar

[Anonymous No.7126123]

>>7125754
have you stared at one?
it's like a rock garden
looking at a rock garden on a computer monitor of course is stupid

[Anonymous No.7126178]

>>7126123
Any(at least many) huge painting will get extra points for being grandiose. Thats why you have a big screen in the cinema.
Thats why we are impressed by big buildings or waves...
So what.
The only innovation was painting a few squares and nothing else. Big or small it doesnt matter.
It was a provocation, like a lot of abstract pieces.
Not saying provocation cant be interesting or important but its not art in the truest sense.
If you accept Rothko paintings as art then everything is art, even my spitting on your face.

[Anonymous No.7126184]

>>7126178
>even my spitting on your face
Yes but I doubt you would have the guts or creativity to do that and call it art. The real art here is the distressed contortions you put your own face through when you believe modern art is spitting on you.

[Anonymous No.7126189]

>>7126178
it's very childish to care about these distinctions
i am not about to purchase a piece therefore i don't care about something's authenticity as "art"; i don't have to worry about being taken in by a charlatan
all i know is that staring at a rothko is an experience that i appreciated
that's it
i also enjoy staring at waves
not at buildings though
i pity your lack of vision and pettiness

[Anonymous No.7126207]

>>7126184
I dont believe modern art is spitting on me, there is no need to create strawmen, cool down your buttheart.
I have no problem with Provocation or new techniques but I refuse to call experimentation art.
Experimentation is meant to be at some point integrated, melded into the work of art, like a script is melded into a movie and is no more.
It needs to strive for the eternal to towards being contemporary, that should already be within the true artist, not his goal.
I can experiment with new techniques as an artist but It is morally wrong to define art in a way that is unrelated to morality.
Like saying something is art simply because someone thought about calling it art.
Yeah...

Art and the artist have a moral obligation to the world that sustains them.
They do not exist in a vacuum.
I refuse to agree on a definition of art where art is for art's sake.
Art has the moral obligation to make the world a better place, not create games and amusements for the rich.
I refuse to define art in a way that makes a joke out of it or makes it unimportant.

>>7126189
No, what is childish is to say things like "all i know is that staring at a rothko is an experience that i appreciated, that's it".
This is whats truly childish.
Under this guise or understanding of art murder can be ideally art.
No, ideal art, true art is morally good and important, is relevant to humans and society.

[Anonymous No.7126213]

>>7126207
Not serving the consumption culture as part of a production line, churning out a new model of "art" every year.

[Anonymous No.7126257]

>>7126207
do you only read non-fiction?

[Anonymous No.7126262]

>>7126257
These days, mostly yes.

[Anonymous No.7126263]

>>7126262
you should remember that there are indirect routes and sometimes these are more powerful for it

[Anonymous No.7126279]

>>7126263
I dont know what you mean. I dont claim art should be complex, on the contrary, it has to be relevant for a large amount of people, not just for experts serving as judges in some upper class art game.

[Anonymous No.7126318]

>>7122484
>>7122523
>>7122587
>>7122735
>>7122732
>>7122744
>>7122740
>>7122742
>>7122755
>>7122824
>>7122902
>>7122891
>>7122885
>>7122880
>>7122976
>>7123026
UTTER GARBAGE.

[Anonymous No.7126360]

>>7126279
i'm saying that one does not necessarily (or even best) move the mass of men towards realization by means of didactic work

[Anonymous No.7126378]

>>7126318
Uttering garbage is what you do best.

[Anonymous No.7126382]

>>7126360
Its not by means of didactic work but by the enrichment of the experience of sharing one's emotional world and outlook on life.
i.e. you portray your emotions through your work so that others can share in them and understand them and share in the sharing of them.
The more interesting and refined and honest the emotion is and the clearer it is passed on, the better.
The work's intention has to be good and the artist has to be completely honest and original.
It should not pander or copy or borrow.
It should not rely on some obtuse extra artistic explanation but provide access to the artist's emotions to the virginal viewer.

[Anonymous No.7126386]

>>7125767
Don't judge paintings by how "pretty" they are, also, grabbing some general art history books could help.

[Anonymous No.7126393]

>>7125729
You don't know what art is.

[Anonymous No.7126435]

>>7126386

Exactly, you must learn to understand why a piece is good, you dont just feel it and enjoy.
It has to be under the right setting after it's positive qualities have been carefully explained.
Art is an intellectual struggle to solve a political puzzle.

[Anonymous No.7126443]

>>7126382
>>7126382
an individual does not know his emotions well enough to reliably convey them in art, let alone have that as the "art" criterion in every instance

considering we started on rothko, your insistence on eschewing explanation is bizarre -- what could require less explanation than the object of meditation?

[Anonymous No.7126463]

>>7126443

>muh subconsciousness

Why is this board full of pseudo intellectual poseurs who just want to post smart ass comments.
You can start pointing out spelling mistakes while you are at it.

[Anonymous No.7126467]

>>7126435
Many here will take this post at face value.

[Anonymous No.7126497]

>>7126463
This is the first time I've seen 'poser' spelled like 'poseur' even though I already knew it was another way of spelling 'poser'. I know that people don't use it because they don't want to sound pretentious.

Congratulations. What's the next step for your master plan?

[Anonymous No.7126522]

>>7126435
No shit, it takes knowledge about art to appreciate art. You don't need "right settings", and there is nothing like a "political puzzle" to solve - you simply need to have a clue about importent periods and movements, and what they were trying to achieve.
Surely, fauvism can look like a bunch of "ugly" paintings to you, but if you would bother picking up a book or even wikipedia you could at least understand that Matisse didn't seek "realism", and often, no aesthetic merit at all.
I don't know why have you decided art must "provide access to the artist's emotions to the virginal viewer", since that's just giving up half the beauty of art. The development of how human perception can be processed and re-arranged, exploration of the canvas a world with it's own rules, all those "intellectual" things, are fascinating and beautiful. And again, they can easily be appreciated by anyone whos'e ready to make a little effort - you can spend an hour of your time reading, you don't have to take art-history at uni... It will just be a shame to give up all that just so that art could be more "accessible".

[Anonymous No.7126543]

>>7126522
Thats utter bullshit.
You go to your art schools to learn how to be part of the consumption culture and fabricate "art".
An actual artist ignores imitation and learn technique and invests time in understanding how to incorporate new techniques in an accessible and beautiful way.
What you are describing is understanding technique.
That is for the artist to do not the viewer.

Through new techniques an artist creates emotional infection and expresses himself, his experience and views, what makes him a person living in his time.
He does not explore new technique and call it art.
That is bullshit and feed not for uneducated people but precisely for the pseudo intellectual poseurs, riding the capitalist consumer train, trying to prove to themselves they have superior taste.

[Anonymous No.7126546]

>>7126543
The focus on techniques is precisely why so many cultural products today seem dated after just a few years.
The consumer was taught to appreciate something unworthy of appreciation as if its the responsibility of the viewer to work to understand the artist and not the artist's job to clearly explain himself.
Imitation and cheap technical tricks disguising themselves as art so one can crank out tons of work and get payed.

[Anonymous No.7126564]

>>7126463
is that a stupidly longwinded way to say "troll"?
i assure you i think your position is stupid, incoherent, and untenable

[Anonymous No.7126568]

>>7126564
Your comment did not say anything, you were just throwing some retarded platitudes at me and being a smartass. When you present actual arguments I reply.

[Anonymous No.7126623]

>>7126568
>i'm too stupid to understand even though a concept opposing my own has been explained multiple ways by a patient man

peace out fam

[Anonymous No.7126649]

>>7126623
bye.

[Anonymous No.7126743]

>>7126522
>you could at least understand that Matisse didn't seek "realism",
Author's intent doesn't matter, dude. This argument is so flawed that you don't have the right to claim that someone needs to study something.

>and often, no aesthetic merit at all
Art is aesthetic merit though.

[Anonymous No.7126832]

Anyone like Hiroshi Nagai?

[Anonymous No.7126968]

>>7126743
>Author's intent doesn't matter, dude. This argument is so flawed that you don't have the right to claim that someone needs to study something.

You didn't understand me, or rather, I may have not explained myself properly. If I was to write a novel about, say, the detachment of the modern man from his own feelings - wouldn't it be pretty stupid to say my book is bad because the character lacks emotional depth? You should look for the creations value where it was placed, not wherever you feel like. Of course, if you just see utter shit in every front, "author's intent" is no excuse.
In our case, Matisse's "The conversation", all you really have to know is that Matisse was trying to uncover the meaning behind reality, how it is experienced by him in a level that's beyond the visual, and give it a visual expression through re-arranging it as a composition of colors. You can like or dislike how he did it, but saying "Matisse is shit because he couldn't make pretty paintings" is pointless.

>Art is aesthetic merit though.
I don't agree, but I was probably over-exaggerating it whan I said Matisse didn't seek any aesthetic merit.

[Anonymous No.7127038]

>>7126543
I don't go to art school, just saying.

>An actual artist ignores imitation and learn technique and invests time in understanding how to incorporate new techniques in an accessible and beautiful way.
I did not say anything against innovation. There is no correct way to create artistic merit. You contradict yourself when you say the artist, which "ignores limitation" has to incorporate techniques in an "accessible and beautiful way". That's a rule, or a goal rather, you just set arbitrarily.
Besided your weird comments on art as a symbol of status, which are really just a vast ad-hominem attack, you didn't really supply any proper reason for why art has to be focused on accessible and visually-satisfying expression.

>He does not explore new technique and call it art
Unless your'e looking at sketches, an artist usually showcases only "experiments" he sees success in. Also, the way you define anything that's beyond the feelings expressed "technique" is problematic. Cubism isn't a technique, it's alot more than that. When the merit is to be found in places that aren't related to the artists feelings (not directly, at least), the so-called technique is somthing alot bigger. To use cubism as an example again, using geometric spaces as building-blocks to reconstruct the rules of visual-perception as presented on the canvas is alot more than a technique to express feelings with. It's a deep and fascinating way of creating dialogue between our world and the canvas.

>>7126546
Once again ignoring the ad-hominem, your argument doesn't really hold. Take a look at Cezan for example, as an artist who'e ideas were adopted by many artists after his death and developed to a very far extent. His art is still interesting to observe, the fact Picaso managed to take the deconstruction further doesn't make Cezan lose his own merit. You could say early cubism looks outdated when compared with late-cubism (or at least. a single phase of cubism's early/late years), but you still can't really argue for why it's a "bad" phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.7127064]

>>7122241
Beautiful painting, I saw it in Madrid also with a rare exhibition of his Black paintings.

[Anonymous No.7127188]

>>7126968
>but saying "Matisse is shit because he couldn't make pretty paintings" is pointless.
No it isn't. Being pretty is literally the only reason why painting exists in the first place. Objectively speaking, Matisse failed at being a painter.

[Anonymous No.7127313]

>>7127188
>. Being pretty is literally the only reason why painting exists in the first place.
That's wrong in the first place, not that the origins of painting would have made a good argument against any painter even if your claim was true.
Stop talking out your ass, you clearly don't know too much.

[Anonymous No.7127684]

>>7126543
>how to incorporate new techniques in an accessible and beautiful way
Tolstoy pls

[Anonymous No.7129565]

>>7126832
>Hiroshi Nagai
what is this, vaporwave painting?