/sci/ - Science & Math

I think art is something that has many intepretations or is just plainly beautiful to look at.

That Picasso's painting is not beautiful to me, but I could find some intepretations from it if I tried.

Now if you would take a picture from Crysis or some scenery painting it'd be beautiful to look at. That's art too.

Basically art is something that makes people feel different kinds of feelings, happiness, sadness etc.

Art is something only Humans have adapted to understanding, along with music. I get the same reaction looking at that picazo style art as you do, but there is more beautiful art out there, pic related.

>>2817986
I'm in the same basket as you. I can appreciate the skill and beauty of both a skillfully taken photograph and well-made drawing, but the vast majority of "art gallery art" makes no sense to me.

Pic related, art I can appreciate.

Nah, I'm with you, OP. Picasso was a mediocre artist who glommed on to a new trend and rode it for all it was worth. Titanically fucking over rated. But if you want to understand him in context go back to guys like Marcel Duchamp and Cezanne and a shitload of other, superior artists who's influence fed into this whole trendoid shit heap that the art of painting gradually turned into.

Without the context, picasso makes no sense at all. Even with the context, he still sucks.

My hunter gatherer hunting and gathering all time

My make agriculture

Oh, now free time plenty

Make pointless thing with no use as tool or food

Man from tribe over river know it take much time to make pointless thing

Man from tribe over river think "wow this strange tribe very rich, have much time and food"

Man from tribe over river jellisimo

Me happy

I see that a lot of you are in the same boat as me then..
So would you say that all this weird shit like paint dripping down walls, and lights going on and off is just bullshit?

It makes me think I must be missing something when two lights switching on and off are considered a masterpiece by the experts in the field.

>>2818001
That would be significantly more beautiful is the person in it wasn't such an obvious douchenozzle.

>>2818036
Art is like a religion, i.e., a huge built-up mound of horseshit dedicated to assuring the participant that he or she matters in any way.

>>2818050
Makes sense I guess..

This guy confuses me the most I think
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock

How is this anything more than just a mess?
Yet he is universally acclaimed.

Most art nowadays is pretentious bullshit trying to lower the person's self esteem when he doesn't "get it" or trying to alienate him. It's a circlejerk where people with big glasses profoundly lick eachother's asshole's while giving someone else a handjob and saying: oui ma chéri, tu l'as trouvée la génialité.
And then they cum on their face

>>2817986

it's called the weeping woman, the fact she's made up of many "polygons" shows she is fractured and look at the colours used. primarily blue which invokes a sense of sadness and then red (anger) and yellow and green (cowardice and envy)

without even knowing the name of the piece you can tell the subject is beyond sad...

everyone can draw their own interpretations from art, although a lot of art is just bullshit and i dont really like picasso but w/e

>>2818032

Hunter-gatherer cultures have, in general, far more free time than we do.

>>2818003
just to point out picasso was an excellent "classical artist", probably one of the best at his times, but he is known for all his other shit.

>>2818083
No, they don't

Free time = Time they don't spend collecting food

They can fill that free time with non-essential things

I know this is the most mainstream example conceivable, but I love this painting not because of it's photorealism, but because of the mystery behind her expression. I could look at her face for days.

Sure, stuff like this >>2818001 and >>2818002

are nice to look at, but they don't make you wonder about anything.

The same way a movie with amazing CGI might be nice to look at, but it still bores you because that's all there is to it.

>>2817986
All that I can deduce from this piece is that her chin slightly resembles a ballsack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZKkYdelD2o

To me, art is either aesthetically pleasing or not. People tend to assign lots of meaning to it - and that meaning in itself is incredibly trivial. I talking to a friend once who mentioned the Mona Lisa, and I asked why she thought it was so good and she replied "because it's just fascinating to wonder what she was thinking and why she was smiling"

and all I could think was, well, yeah. People do have thoughts and people do smile. Why is contemplating this particular persons thoughts so exciting? I'm not sure if that is the standard appeal of the Mona Lisa, but if it is (because it certainly doesn't look that great) then I'm not impressed.

>>2818103

>Free time = Time they don't spend collecting food

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Especially hunter-gatherers living in lush rainforests, they don't have to search for food for 8 hours a day. Unless there's a crisis for some reason.

cubism happened around the time we got moving pictures, it was a way painters tried to capture motion, different angles, lightning, timing and all that stuff. it works in context.

as for art itself, as i understand it, is about transferring your unconsciousness onto canvas, following impulses, and improvising. not letting in the judgemental, verbalising self for a second. tapping the source of creativity, and catching what comes out by buckets.

also, video games are not art.

>>2818107
>mystery behind her expression
She is fucking smirking.
HNNNNGGGGGGGG

>>2818107

>my opinion about said piece automatically counts for every single being in existence

Seems like some people can't comprehend that the act of 'experiencing' art itself is solely subjective.

And WHOOPS there we have another circlejerk of people who just want to degrade others.

>>2818115
This guy again. Just saw this
>>2818107

Please address my post, because I just don't see how her 'mysterious expression' is that thought provoking. She has to be pulling some face, she can't be faceless, but something about HER smile intrigues you. I could post a plethora of other paintings with people pulling facial expressions; how are they not equally as mysterious?

"That painting looks pretty cool" = doing it right.
>>2818107 = doing it wrong.

>>2818107

I posted this one >>2818001 and that was very much for the looks. I'm more like you and prefer art with a deep meaning. Pic related.

>>2818143
>deep meaning
>just a picture of some event taking place

NOPE.JPG

>>2818143

>deep meaning
>implying the 'depth' of art isn't created by the audience itself

>>2818071
The only way I can tell she's sad is because of the FUCKING TEARS DRAWN ON HER FACE. None of those colors invoke any emotion to me, as they're just thrown about helter-skelter.

>>2818107
It's a slightly-amused woman. Get the hell over it.

>>2818131

>I could post a plethora of other paintings with people pulling facial expressions; how are they not equally as mysterious?

Because you can't tell whether she's very sad or very happy. Her expression can go both ways.

>>2818149
Because you're looking at it just as an event. There's smaller things like the flower in her hand signifying peace to the soldiers, but the audience knows a different story. Just what is going on for a little girl to walk out so freely and take her life. Most children are scared of death.

>>2818163
Here is a photo of Picard.

You can't tell if he is having a stroke or taking a crap.

It could go both ways.

SO DEEEEEP.

>>2818161
You're also forgetting she's clutching her wrist which is a common expression for unease.

>>2818127

You're the one being presumptous here. I was talking about my personal approach to art. You're the one talking about bullshit implications that I never implied.

>>2818168
God dammit Stewart, what are you doing?

To me, this is art. You see the author is very skilled; the expressions are great and it's aesthetically great (IMO).
"Museum Art" is just bullshit. Everyone gives the painting their own interpretation, when there's actually nothing.

>>2818178
And the less there is the more they 'get'

>>2818168
I think he looks extremely happy. Like very happy.

>>2818171

>but they don't make YOU wonder about anything.
>but it still bores YOU because that's all there is to it

>>2818185

Are you not a native english speaker?

Or just an imbecile?

>>2818168
I was captivated by this screencap when I first saw it, because of the beauty and complexity of the composition, not to mention the beauty of the man on the left. He is every bit the idealised American Joe, from his brown hair and his lazy eye to his lips down to his black boots. He is beautifully rendered by the artist, who has a great sensitivity towards themale physical presence.

The style is both traditional, recalling early paintings, which can also be seen in the Picard collection, and at the same time it's modern: The couple have a contemporary 2150's look and aura. The fashions, especially the uniforms, wouldn't look out of place today. The statuesque forms and strong 'visionary' light give it an idealistic, neo-classical quality, characteristic of much art and architecture of the 2130s.
At the modern art summer school I did in Paris in 2350, I learned that paintings are criss-crossed with invisible lines, used by artists as an aid to composition. This painting has a complex network of these lines, some flowing in a meandering course from top right to lower left, and others running vertically and horizontally.

At the centre of things is the main focus of the image, a beautiful symbol of authority being pushed to it's breaking point, which is placed on the intersection of two very significant lines. One running horizontally from the left man's eyes to the bald man's face. The other running vertically from the bald man's nose through the center of the screen; possibly intersecting with a turd just below the edge of the image.

>>2818192

>faulty utilization of pronouns
>blames me afterwards

Here's a quality painting for you fuckers.

>>2818196
The lines form a cross, a potent Christian symbol. The word 'Amity' means 'friendship' or 'harmonious relations' but it comes from a word in French and Latin meaning 'love'. Is there love here and if so, is it spiritual or carnal? Is it more Spock and Kirk; or Sulu and friends? The base of the cross, a symbol of religious purity, points to the man's lower body. Could this have something to do with fertility?

Whatever the painter was alluding to, I'm told that the relationship of the couple who posed for the painting was completely harmonious, in fact they did love each other deeply. There's certainly deep concern in the eyes of the left man at the sight of his lover's position.

It's a remarkable image which we as photographers can learn much from. And unlike most photographs of the time, this picture has vibrant colours, fresh and crisp as if the scalp - now there's another element of symbolism - had only been painted yesterday.

I could gaze at this painting for hours, and I would travel a long way to see it. I'm not sure how much it would cost to own, but when it's on display again in Liverpool, I'll be able to travel to there and see it again. I recommend everyone should do likewise!

>>2818178
Looks more like somebody was practicing drawing exaggerated expressions.

>>2818203
>and I would travel a long way to see it

And here's another thing. Why do people go to galleries/pay huge sums to see paintings when they are on the Internet for free? Just print a copy off fuckers. It's the exact same stimuli.

>>2818196

This is an extremely sad painting.

>>2818210
Well no shit Sherlock, they're frowning and crap. But do I want to pay for it/hang it on my wall? No.

Come back when you have some cool pictures of space ships and coloured/tampered space shots.

i made a art
tell me ur interpretations

>>2818196
Oh, you klingons and your highbrow aesthetic.

>>2818213

The whole idea of such an event happening in our society is what's sad, not just them frowning.

>>2818214
Shit bricks:
Graphics3D[Table[{Hue[RandomReal[]],BezierCurve[RandomReal[1,{4,3}]]},{30}]]

>>2818205
Yep, that's the idea (if you're interested, the comic is here http://www.lackadaisycats.com/).).
Things are exaggerated there, as you said, but it's a nice comic IMO.

>>2818219
The artist could have given a brief 50 word summary of the event and sad why he found it sad; then used his skill to paint something cool.

Rage... I wrote like a couple of paragraphs on the subject and then it said. *ERROR: field too long* and I lost everything....

Guessed I'm forced to sum up my 'essay'...

Art is the visual equivalent of food. Via evolutionary psychology, our brain interprets things as good or bad because of their ability to advance survival and reproduction.

Things that looks good are things that help us to do so (survive/reproduce).

Then I went on a tirade about how the media doesn't control beauty...

I'd be happy to elaborate upon request, but hopefully this is sufficient for now.

>>2818196
Brilliant. Thread won.

>>2818231
So you're saying blacks are inferior to whites?

>>2818203
>Kirk and Spock

Total bromance.

Am the only person that noticed the triforce on the Enterprise-D engine?

Also, /r/ing the pic of that guy shooting paint out of his ass onto a canvas.

>art

http://www.theawl.com/2011/03/arms-so-freezy-rebecca-blacks-friday-as-radical-text#more

Very relevant to the thread.

This what art history degrees create for society.

This article is obviously satire but it does it so lucidly that it leads one to realize: any "art commentary" is simply a banal reproduction of the past. There is nothing that is currently produced for mass consumption that warrants an analysis on such a lofty philosophical plateau. There is no great art for great minds to devour. Every new act of creation is swaddled and then smothered in intentional irony and self doubt. There will never be another Hamlet.

>>2818240
Don't have the pic, but here is the result.

>>2818217
>klingons
>high brow

I see what you did there.

>>2818249
I don't.

>There will never be another Hamlet.

On the plus side, we've easily got a thousand monkeys right here.

>>2818235

I'm going to objectively admit, from an aesthetic standpoint, the typical face of a person of african/african-american descent is NOT as attractive as the typical face of a caucasian person, no.

Is this a Star Trek thread?

>>2818261
A shit tier is not shit without Lwaxxan Troi.

This is real art faggots.

OP should learn to distinguish between art and paintings.

Filmmaking (including TV series), music, literature, painting are all different mediums of art.

Don't tell me you don't understand those things either.

>>2818270
Stop being a pedantic motherfucker, you knew what he meant.

>>2818261
You forgot Morn. He belongs in god tier

>>2818270
Not OP, but I don't understand modern music either. I can't find a link right away, but some of that stuff is a cacophony of sounds that makes me think "just what the fuck am I listening to"? I just don't get it so I tell these musicians that they wasted their time making it and they will never receive any money from me and suddenly they start acting all offended..

>>2818231

I'm the guy who made that post. I'm tripcoding because I'm 'bout to say some controversial shit and I want people to know I'm the one responding to them.

I wanted to expound on the media thing about objective beauty.

Two facts I want everyone to know:

1. THE MEDIA DOES NOT CONTROL BEAUTY

2. THERE IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF BEAUTY

/cruise control

Whether /sci/ likes or not this is heavily psychology and psychology is real fucking shit.

Female attractiveness is at all times dictated by fecundity. And, although the standard of beauty is objective, everyone's perception of reality is subjective. Two guys can look at the same girl and see different things. Another thing I want to address, a scientific study found that there is an inverse proportion of body weight attractiveness and access to food. McDonald's every two feet = skinny is hot, Five miles for a bowl of rice = chunky is sexy. This is why in the olden times, middle ages and such, slightly chubby women were the ideal, but modern day america idolizes the size zero super models.

I don't want to go on too long because I might pass the character limit...

>>2818064
People say that Pollack was an "abstract expressionist" only his work resembles nothing like other abstract expressionists (think DeKooning).

Now, recognize that Pollack was a violent drunk. Look at his work again. Mystery solved.

>>2818306
This. I try to be respectful of other musical tastes (I don't like pop, or some heavy metal stuff, for example), but there's that stuff, as you said, that I don't even consider as music. There's no melody, no emotions, no lyrics, no anything that can be close to be considered "musical".

>>2818306
>>2818333

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-YuuNhS-7o

Would you consider this to be one of such songs that you don't understand?

Picasso paintings were supposed to be 3 dimensional objects unfolded into 2 dimensional objects

>>2818355
You mathematicians can't argue with that
You do the same thing
lol

>>2818319

Cool opinions bro. But thats what they are. You could be wrong. Just saying.

To all the science-inclined 4chan users browsing this thread:

Art is a journey. You can't sit back and say "Bring me something that will stimulate me!" like some glutenous sovereign.

You have to seek it out in order to enjoy it. You also have to realize that it documents the emotional context of an individual consciousness during a finite period time that will never again happen.

Rebecca Black's "Friday" may not deserve the in depth analysis it receives as parody in this article:

http://www.theawl.com/2011/03/arms-so-freezy-rebecca-blacks-friday-as-radical-text#more

But, that doesn't change what it shows about the current state of our culture. ie. "Onanistically recursive" and collectively ego-dead to the point where everything must be a parody of itself.

>>2818379
Okay then
What do Mexicans have to do with Beethoven?

>>2818379

actually, I would count them more as theories yet to be proven...

But what do you find wrong with my statements?

As far as I know, my statements are logically consistent and offer explanatory and predictive power...

seems pretty scientific to me...

>>2818391

Why don't we ask the painter? His name is Paul N Grech.

"People have asked me "what is the meaning of this painting?" I've had to reply by asking them "what is the meaning of a violin solo?" I can think of nothing less deserving of explanation than a pure emotion. It, just simply, is. I can also think of nothing more human than the creation of art, in whatever medium and from whatever level of talent. Art is life, and painting is the process of life, manifested."

>>2818407

You just said "HERE ARE SOME FACTS" and it tripped my spurious claims-dar.

Occam would certainly side with your side of the argument. You must realize that though you may be right in saying that the media does not control what we perceive as beautiful, it largely controls what we choose to consume and even how we feel about it afterwards.

It directly influences what perceived is sensational at the time, which is enough for the leftward inhabitants of the art appreciation bell curve ie. the mindless cretins.

Then using preprogrammed cues from our psychology, distant echos from our cultural past and our capitalistic awareness of luxury consumption (note that these categories are overlapping and interdigitated), it "helps" us know which stimulation to direct to our reward centers and which to ignore and deride.

All this to earn our individuality back. We tell ourselves that we hold individual opinions about art consumption and it makes us feel like the fractal generated snowflake.

TLDR. Capitalist art steal our identity (all aspects) and then sells it back to us in incomplete packets designed to keep us perpetual media consuming junkies.

>>2818407

Also aesthetics and cognitive awareness of abstract concepts (like beauty) is not exactly what you would call pure science.

>>2817986
Sagan had to smoke weed in order to appreciate art. It's hard for science- or mathfags to appreciate art. I don't either. It always seems like bullshit to me.

This is art.

>>2818464

Well, personally I would count them as facts, just like evolution and gravity.

But I can see your point... I disagree with you maybe one or two things, but I want to clarify.

Though this objective standard of beauty does exist. There are many other psychological factors that will likely take precedence. For instance, the big one, 'reactance'. Essentially the basis of reverse psychology. There are gonna be people out there crazy enough to convince themselves that some cow is amazingly beautiful because they feel like being hipsters of female attractiveness. And like some people are gonna have to settle because not everyone that wants to have a girlfriend is gonna get a super hot one. Oh, and there's this documented phenomena that proves my point further. Essentially the longer you are around something/ with someone it/they become more attractive. Which is basically another way of saying your brain purposely distorts your perception of reality to make people closer to the objective ideal of beauty that has been there since birth.

I wish this would get more appreciated.

>>2818379
I like your post and agree with it, but it does make me depressed to consider the state of modern culture, especially since I've always felt parody is among the weakest forms of expression seeing as how it lacks any real creativity other than making fun of someone elses creation through childish mockery. And I think 4chan's the perfect illustration of the diminishing returns of mockery. At some point a joke will always become old and unfunny but art is immortal.

>>2818491

Eh... I will agree that the people on this board don't deem psychology to be a hard science. I'll give you that.

>>2818496

yeah, and...?

>>2818506

I appreciate it...

>>2818505

Are you saying that all mechanisms for judging beauty are entangled with the cognitive processes behind mate choice?

I think you're forgetting the beauty of the "other." That which is not human. Natural beauty which occurs in all living structures is created by the vibration of the universe. It is awareness of the harmony between the universal vibration and our consciousness.

>>2818554

lawl. Even though you sound like a crackpot, I'm going to take your first part seriously.

>Are you saying that all mechanisms for judging beauty are entangled with the cognitive processes behind mate choice?

>I think you're forgetting the beauty of the "other." That which is not human.

Human attractiveness is the only one based on reproductive success. I'm fairly certain I stated earlier. The two things determining beauty are visual inputs cues that display survival/reproductive ability.

For instance, the ideal landscape is a lively plain with a shimmering body of water. Because it shows its capacity to support life and is indicative of survival.

Another thing I haven't mentioned is actions. "Oh man that kick was beautiful!" Stuff like that. Displays of exceptional skill and technique show development of fine motor skills among other things. Which is why paintings are more impressive, because they are done by hand.

>art has to be beautiful
>art has to be photorealistic
:-|

art is a need to shout out what's inside you.

cave painting may have developed before langauge, or at a time when language was too rudimentary to attemt to convey more complex emotions.

art can rarely communicate precisely. and i am not talking about deliberate ambiguity. and sometimes i guess even the artist is not too sure what it's about -- and this is becaus it comes from that less tangible area of feelings -- because it is not language-based, and words are what we use to think with most of the time (logos?). this is even more true for abstract art (realistic poaintings are beatiful and the beauty of the subject is alreay an artistic statement by itself). but realistic imagery can be achieved with a camera. i am going to stop abruptly now cos

I'd made a thread about you /sci/ fags being unable to comprehend art but I got banned for 3 days.

>>2818623

What is comprehending art?

Is it:

understanding the context?

enjoying it on many levels?

devising the process which created it?

telling other people that they don't comprehend it?

>>2818613

I'm glad you said that.
Art doesn't HAVE to be beautiful, but the bests one are. Art SHOULD be beautiful, I mean do you go looking for bad food? No, food SHOULD be tasty.

I disagree with the photorealistic part. At first I kinda thought something similar, but the best pieces are a kinda ambiguous mix of "cartoon" and accurate.

For instance. I love da Vinci, I love the mona lisa, and I love this guy >>2818107

The mona lisa is interesting because the woman leonardo painted is not particularly beautiful, so art historians say he painted her accurately, but there was also a fine line of accuracy and flattery. And I think he achieved that ideal balance by including key unrealistic elements in just the right places in just the right ways...

>>2818638
>Art SHOULD be beautiful
Yes. It should for you, because art is subjective.
An objective interpretation of art is a tragedy.

>>2818638

The only reason why we know or care about that particular oil painting is because the powers that be (and were) decided that this is what we need to focus on.


It might as well be a portrait of Rebecca Black.

>>2818656
>>2818657

Hey OP you know why you feel nothing when you look at a Picasso?
It's because you're a soulless aspie who cares more about his toys and the internet than real life. Now go back to designing your sex robot.

>>2818661
True artfags despise the works of the masters because they're too mainstream

>>2818672

Nah, true hipsters like what they like. I've always been a true hipster. Someone who likes the mainstream, because all the fake hipsters don't like the mainstream.

I'm as mainstream as it comes in most of my choices. I like michelangelo's david, and the sistine chapel. I like beethoven and mozart, fuck handel he's not mainstream enough.

>>2818689
most of the classic stuff is plain retarded

>>2818689

calls other people's posts troll posts and then gives us this garbage

>>2818689

you do realize that the term "hipster" is derogatory right?

>>2818696
He be trolling, you see!

>>2818696
>>2818692
>>2818704

lol trolled hard.

I didn't realise that comment would be such a succesful trollbait.

I realize most of the time 'hipster' is intended as derogatory, yes. But basically, I just like whats good, and 95% of the time it's mainstream stuff. Which gives further credence to my point. Why are these things so popular? Because we all carry an objective standard of quality that let's us know what is good.

And in the interest of intellectual integrity, yes I really do like the masters, I like da vinci and I like michelangelo (I like da vinci leagues better). And despite the hate I plan to receive I honestly enjoy classical music.

>>2818107

I'm really late to this, but to me all I think is: who gives a shit what she's thinking? It probably wasn't important when she was thinking it, and it's certainly not important now for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that she's dead.

Though I have a problem with people who become fixated on the lives of others in general. In particular the people who spend all their time learning about 'the man behind the idea' rather than learning the idea itself.

I'll just leave this here...

"Whether we are speaking of Picasso, Modrian, Matisse or de Kooning. Many of their works could be completed in a couple of days or a couple of hours. Their dealers now had an enormous supply to meet whatever demand they could generate. They had high motivation to prove that these paintings were not only as valuable as the prior generation's, but that they were even better. And when the money pouring in from this consummate con game, they were able to buy themselves historians, writers and critics, who happily developed complex, convoluted arguments to justify their philosophical positions."
http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/ArtScam/artscam.php

>>2818379

I'm guessing the comments like that work you cited

http://www.theawl.com/2011/03/arms-so-freezy-rebecca-blacks-friday-as-radical-text#more

because of how unnecessary it is, at least I hope that's the reason. The sad reality is that some people look at a song like that and read this exegesis with a straight face. This is why I can't take literary theory and all that bullshit seriously. It didn't get any better after Derrida and it wasn't any good then.

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

>>2818657

I defy anyone to argue against this. Had that been the only work he'd done, for example, there would be no celebration of it. It has little to do with the picture itself. Art has Foyer Effect and other cognitive biases written all over it.

>>2818770

I wouldn't disagree with you, those artists are dicksucking failures. I don't care for the distorted shit at all, picasso can go die in a fire.

Great choice by the way, I love Bouguereau.

>>2818813
>figurative art
>that's all that your /sci/fag mind can ever decode

>>2818808
>>2818744

There's a lot about the mona lisa that isn't common knowledge. There's a lot baout da Vinci that isn't common knowledge.

The mona lisa is an amazing portrait that was extremely revolutionary in its day and remains a spectacle to behold. It employs so many different techniques that display the learnings of da Vinci's year. Mona Lisa is like a visual dissertation. He studied light, the eye, and he loved optical illusions. He dealings with mathematics helped him with proportions and certain geometries he used. His profound knowledge of anatomy is displayed in mona lisa's perfect hands. There is a unique aerial atmospheric perspective that makes use of an imaginary background. There's much, much more, but I feel like I'm some pedantic art critic trying to feel superior to you guys.

>>2818847
>I feel like I'm some pedantic art critic trying to feel superior to you guys.

You should.

>>2818847

there are a lot of typos, because I'm tired of typing paragraphs that disappear after extensive spellchecking.

If it hinders your ability to understand my comment, then I'll clarify it for you.

>>2818847
Honestly, mona lisa is Da Vinci's weakest work.
Most of atheists like it because it's not susceptible to religious interpretation.

>>2818794

Fooling the "social sciences" is cool and all but lets not forget this handy little invention:

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

^ An MIT computer program which automatically generates (nonsensical) academic papers. This nifty code has gotten more papers accepted for publication than I have.

>>2818837

No, there is some art that isn't just people and objects. It's just there is less to take in, and most people don't spend enough time really taking composition into note when they make their "expressive abstract" artwork.

>>2818857

Haters gonna hate.

>>2818867

< pic related

>>2818847
Yeah and like Michelangelo he devoted a lot of time to study the male anatomy in the most intimate detail.

>>2818890

Alright, I figure pretty much everyone who was curious and genuinely wanted information has already gotten it, now we're just down to fools and trolls.

I'll be lurking if anyone finds a problem in something I've said, or wants me to clarify things.

>>2818902
Basically you hate cubism, expressionism and abstract art and probably even surrealism...

What's more to discuss?

>>2818919

nope.

I even like some of dali's stuff.

>>2818924
Dali is not a movement.

>>2818933

No, but he is a surrealist

Art is a reflection of our humanity.

>>2818957
He was.

>>2818987

Yes, was, of course.

Art = fart

>>2818326
1. Know nothing about Pollack
>It looks like a mess.
2. He's a violent drunk
>OK, so he painted it whilst drunk. It still looks like a mess.

Either way, it's a piece of shit.

>>2818032
>Man from tribe over river jellisimo

>>2818168
>>2818203
>>2818196

OMG, lost my shit

Art is the ultimate form of pretentious faggotree.

Part 1:


Your question is perfectily legitimate.

An important function of so-called cultural education is simply to show off in order to signal potency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle . For example, a philosopher who speaks in a very complicated way and frequently uses references to classic literature is reliably perceived as highly intelligent and educated. But the truth is, he often has incredibly simple thoughts and commits suprisingly stupid mistakes. That is a very important thing to keep in mind: Culture is largely a waste of ressources! And its function is to show that one can *afford* this waste. It is a very primitive behavior, if you think about it, and if you are too civilized for it, there is no need to feel bad about it.

Part 2:

However, apart from this charade art can sometimes indeed offer useful contents. It can challenge customs, question tradition, break taboos. Picasso's works for example are not pretty in my eyes, and I would rather look at a cute cat picture, a brilliant waterfall shot or a fantastic Sci-Fi-Battle drawing. However, you could find it really interesting that he saw things in a different way to how they normally seem, to put it very generally.

For example, you might look at the picture you posted and think "What is this, I don't even...people just don't look like that!" Well, that seems true. But what does true mean? In this picture, you see the woman from different perspectives at the same time. Would a picture that only showed her in profile show truth? How can that be if it would hide half of her face? Isn't this unrealistic depiction from a certain perspective "truer" than an seemingly accurate depiction?

You might just as well have thoughts about the colours, the shape, the brushes...question anything. And any kind of art, too. Take photographs for example: Why don't we go for realistic photographs only? Why shoot Black&White pictures at all? Of what use could a highly increased contrast be? Why should someone use a photo in gray tones and color a certain element? What effect does that have?

Don't waste too many thoughts on what the "correct" perception on art ist. That should only interest you when you want to use it to show off. Instead, focus on how the elements of a picture appeal to you emotionally. Do they please you, make you sad, anger you? And if so, why? That is where art ends to be mere paint on canvas or simply pixels on a computer screen. That is where art begins to get exciting!

>>2818002
I'm like you. I pissed off some girl once because she showed me a picture of a tree with winter on one side and summer on the other, it looked nice and everything, and she asked me what I saw, so I described it how I described it above. She got upset that I didn't understand the meaning of the picture or something and it was her favorite piece of art.

>>2820764
On the contrary, I can pick up abstract meaning in literature with ease, while most people I know struggle with it, and when I was in school most people had to have it blatantly explained to them and still didn't understand. (albeit most of them probably didn't even know how to read that well)

>>2818069
this

real art should take skill and be realistic as fuck

like da vinci or this other guy who died in like 1902 or something

>>2818107
fucking this as well.

art should have some coded messages which take genus level intelligence to figure out

>>2818178
>photoshop

Fuck no.

Real artists don't use fucking tablets or shit.

fucking hipsters

also if you are going to do art on the computer, it must be ASCII

>>2820771
well aren't you special

Take an intro to art and music class.
They will start you with the basics and let you work your way up.

>>2822338
Pavarotti is my bitch! He couldn't even hit the high f i can hit with ease. Besides Juan Diego Flores sang Pour mon ame better than him! Leggiero tenor pride.

>>2822376
>Start with basics
>Protentiousness 101

Art is fucking worthless! Who needs it anyway? Food, water and sex/masturbation is good enough for animals and therfore it should be sufficient for people too.

>>2822513
We are above animals.

>some of us are