Animation has come far

realism has always been the pinnacle of artistic achievement.

Fucking this, i hate how real it looks because it seems to be destroying animation being unrealistic

I only aprove this for dead celebrities and younger versions of old actors.

Funny thing is that Square was trying for this all the way back in the early 2000s with the main character of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within as they wanted to use her in future movie and game projects as a digital actress. Too bad the movie bombed and she got her digital walking papers.

lol

You know what's weird, I don't remember Sids dog looking THAT fucked up, wow that's ugly

Kill yourself

Attached: beebus.png (1000x1000, 53K)

Yiff in hell, Furfag.

Sid's dog fucking scares me.

The worst part is that the dog still has fur, so it's even more uncanny looking

Animation has cum fur

>Soul vs Souless

Top: SOUL
Bottom: SOULLESS

Realism can be a good thing in animation, but it isn't as important as movement and expression, and neither of those elements should be sacrificed for it.

spider-verse really made me realize how boring pixar films have gotten visually.

Attached: time2.png (284x298, 73K)

Look that cat’s eyes, nigga must be tripping balls.

He got into the Skooma.

Based.

haha

Yeah, but it’s a movie about talking walking toys. There’s no reason to make a movie like that in live action, because the main characters will be CGI anyway.

It's less of a critique on TS4, and more on the animation industry and public perception in general.

+1 four-chan point

Is that the carpet from the Shining? And repeated on the wall? Cool artistic choice or laziness?

I think they talk about it in a behind the scenes or commentary thing, I forget the exact rationale, but yeah I'm pretty sure it was intentional

>implying the industry won't evolve and manufacture gossip for cybercelebrities

>Kizuna Ai says fuck scandal

I hate this so fucking much.

>Animation has come far
Ok. But I want story.

and tried so hard
but in the end it doesn't even matter

Toy Story never had a good story, take off your nostalgia goggles.

The setting is dull, the characters are dull, the plot sounds like a Little Golden Book bedtime story only some asshole drug it out to a feature film. If you were slightly older when it came out you'd be highly critical of how obnoxious it is compared to other animated films.

>digital walking papers.

Oh, you.

then art is just a shit version of having eyes

Okay, but OP's pic is comparing two animals who are purposefully supposed to look realistic. The point is that one looks like ass and the other is the fully achieved vision. It is impressive and your post has no relevance, sorry!

Can't wait for animation expressionists to come along and topple this shit show.

It's easy enough for one guy to make a painting in his spare time, not so much to make an animation. And from what we've seen on Youtube and such, no one would care anyway.

You got me laffin

>Pixar keeps pushing for style to be dead and realism to be the future, prove me wrong.
I was hoping they wouldn't go this way. I didn't think they were. Damn.

Isn't that just Zootopia.

The more realistic the cgi get, the less appealing it becomes.

That went out the window when the camera was invented

Imagine having taste this bad.

>CG celebs
>doesn't age
>doesn't die
>doesn't take drugs or ruins body in other ways
>doesn't get me too'd or involved in other scandals
>doesn't have mood swings or tantrums and does what you want
It's perfect. Let it happen.

It'd be a little weird to have multiple generations of teenage girls gushing over the same artificial love-song artist.

You think this is bad? Try videogames. I hate the obsession with realism there. So many games have lost their soul and design chasing realism like Devil May Cry or Resident Evil. FF to a lesser degree is also obsessed with realism....so much for "fantasy" being part of the title. Even Kingdom Hearts has some issues with this (Nomura said he intentionally chose Pirates of the Caribbean only to show off the realistic models of Jack Sparrow and the other live action characters).

Realism is murdering videogames. Glad Nintendo chooses weak hardware so they cannot do realism.

Yeah, but that won't sell. People like following celebrity lives and all that drama and negativity.

If there's something good about realism getting more possible to replicate with CG it is what you just said, CG celebrities. I wonder if those retards will continue to celebrate CGI animation when it erases their cushy jobs forever. I say it will be karma. Always hated celebrities and their Anti-Animation stance, bunch of overpaid court jesters (same to sports athletes who I hope get replaced with robotics).

To be fair, realism should be there in a live action setting.

ahahaha

I don't get it

then you're too young to be here

Attached: art and nature.jpg (936x1436, 331K)

haha wouldn't it be funny if I was an uncultured swine and didn't know who these two people were hahaha good thing we both know right haha

Fat guy is Alfred Hitchcock, guy on the left is... moot, I think.

>Glad Nintendo chooses weak hardware so they cannot do realism.

Someone doesn't remember the Spaceworld Zelda demo followed by Wind Waker's reveal. Granted, the Spaceworld demo aged like absolute dogshit in WW is damn near timeless

Richard Nixon and Winston Churchill

I love realism, but this statement is just fucking wrong.

Took me a few seconds

Attached: 1552162558221.png (1506x963, 76K)

This so much
Also on a side note fuck this ip block shit.

It becomes simulation rather than animation.

Realism isn't about making things more boring, it's about making them more visceral.

Any idiot can make something crude and call it abstract, making you fill in the gaps isn't the point. If expecting the viewers' imagination to fill in gaps was all it took, then fluid animation, colorful animation, detailed animation, or indeed, animation at all wouldn't exist. The visuals have to either be beautiful or grotesque, but they have to be so in a way that truly inspires those feelings in you. Realism is just approaching that more.

You can't say realism is drab and boring when a National Geographic documentary at 4k is full of colors and intricate, crisp detail and shape and Avengers Civil War was a grey, dull, flat piece of shit. Film making is a different thing, a film maker knows how to capture lights and dark, color and detail, how to infer a mood and tell story with deliberate decisions of visuals, principles that apply even more to animation. That the models are more crude or abstract don't change that. The new Lion King would look unbelievably better if it JUST had better color grading and shadow balances. It'd still be realistic, but it'd be realistically pleasant to see.

Kek

Someone post the quote from the French director talking about the achievement of realism marks the death of an artform

Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford?

I still wish K-chan won.

Man on the left is Jacques Rivette. The one the right is Jean Renoir. Both French directors.

Source: a-bittersweet-life.tumblr.com/post/51566482706/jean-renoir-discusses-his-art

...

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHHAHA

NO

Attached: 1495521761771.gif (400x200, 245K)

Completely agreed. I'm not interested in looking at a simulacrum of real life. I like when the textures aren't perfectly realistic, especially on faces.

The realism of the characters in Devil May Cry and Resident Evil 2 was depressing. I'm dreading when they will remake RE4 and try to improve upon perfection.

Attached: leon.jpg (1200x675, 84K)

based

If Bob Ross proved anything, realism is actually easier than stylised art.

hitchcock said that a movie is like real life without the boring parts

based

American 3D animation has yet to reach the point where people start paying attention to the actual aesthetics and not just the technology.

And this is just going into the exact opposite direction and embracing total artistic degeneracy e.g. people painting some random strokes and calling the work "untitled."

Attached: 1536500853451.png (416x435, 123K)

Attached: lion king.gif (500x287, 2.52M)

>soulless vs. soul

SOUL VS SOULLESS

>Just make the same shit but cgi

Too bad the movie is going to suck shit.

i hope so.

I honestly think K is the best one, now all we have is a boring as fuck design that's black and grey, like every other console-tan.

TERROR, FUCK IT!

What is this? Artist?

>He says, wondering why Japanese media is quickly becoming mainstream in the states.

animation that aim for realism is the death of animation.

Realism is a big part of anime.

I love you.

It's absurd realism though.

There can be absurdity in anime, but realism is the basic approach.

>Yea Forums trying to talk about foreign animation again
Yeah, not even going on that territory ever again, ythis places know nothing and without twitter screencaps to "win" arguments you will sink yourself in lunatic rants like that post all day.

?

The backgrounds sure, but most characters are truly absurd.

It's always been A pinnacle of artistic achievement. There are multiple pinnacles.

Realism is also the basis for the characters.

Impossible hair, huge eyes, un-anatomical body proportions, absurd clothing, etc. Not bad things mind you but not truly realistic.

These are all just stereotypes created from one or two anime, maybe even JRPGs.

>one or two anime
Try around 85% of all anime. Even the ones that try to be realistic have some amount of absurdism in it because that is the style they know.

You haven't seen even 0,1% of anime. You are just repeating stereotypes that are based on virtually nothing.

I think the worst one that I’ve seen here was
>Japan censors blood in manga like how America censors sexual things in comics.
Imagine being that wrong.

This is absolutely correct, because nature is primitive and brutish, while mankind has been blessed with attributes beyond it. The divine gifts of science and industry are our domain, and we should use them to extract nature out of our souls, until we cast it behind ourselves and into the endless oblivion that awaits the stagnant, ugly chaos of the natural order. It is through our gifts that we should forge a new order, more grand and perfect than anything that nature could ever possibly achieve. Nature can only chain us to the bedrock of the Earth, even as we gaze up to the infinite majesty of the Heavens, binding us forever until we are met with the same oblivion that awaits it. So too is art held back by nature, our imitation of the natural form can only restrain us from achieving out most lofty of goals. The imitation of nature is the death of the art form, as the imitation of nature is the death of man itself.

Name 7 then.

knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-want-to-cum-inside-rainbow-dash

You are just proving my point. You are asking me to name seven anime that aren't Dragon Ball Z or whatever you imagine alll anime to be like. Such anime are a dime a dozen every season, as anyone who actually watches anime would tell you.

Are people really being angry that a cat looks like a cat?

So you're saying you can't.

I'm saying you don't know anything about anime. This is like me asking someone to name 7 American movies starring a black man, and then smugly sitting back and expecting him to fail. You are just revealing your own total ignorance here.

No, I'm sitting smug because you cannot even prove your claim.

Stanley Kubrick would have fucking loved the idea of working with CG characters. The man hated actors and considered interacting with them the worst part of his job, so being able to manipulate a CG model at his pleasure and remove the human off the equation would have been heaven to him.

Attached: stanley-kubrick.jpg (1280x720, 93K)

Did you read what I just said? This is equivalent to asking someone to name seven American movies with a black male lead. You are talking about something that is a dime a dozen, and you only think it isn't because your knowledge of anime starts and ends with some battle shounen. You don't even know the basics of the topic you are for some reason attempting to have an argument over.

>something that is a dime a dozen
Then name them.

Why are you not reading my posts? What is wrong with you?

It already started with Spider-Verse.

Because you still haven't named a single one.

Even if I answered your question it would not matter since you have decided to just ignore anything I tell you.

Fucking idiots watch a battle shounen and instantly think they have comprehensive knowledge of the entire field of anime.

>comprehensive knowledge of the entire field of anime
Well I'm sure you do so it shouldn't be that hard for you to name 7.

technology and skill maybe but artistically? hell no. count how many realism artists on instagram and compare that amount to artists who actually have a distinct beautiful artstyle

The invention of the camera has nothing to do with the ability to use a paintbrush to create something that looks very realistic and is also aesthetically pleasing. This muh camera argument is just the modern art movement pissing in people's eyes and assuring them that it's just raining.

tpbp

Based

The most realism i can have in my games, the better. I think REmake2 isn't realistic enough, it should have a realistic inventory system, realistic doors that don't close themselves, and so on. Realism is the shit, fuck off, fantasy niggers.

You haven't studied art history a day in your life

Yes.

I spit upon you for your denigration of Mannerism

Attached: 1524516943922.gif (500x375, 1.61M)

>"and that's a good thing!"

Artist?

Jay Naylor

I understand where Hitchcock is coming from but I can tell you all those baroque and early modern artworks are a lot more beautiful than the maciejowskie bible, and the Greco-Roman lifelike statues are a lot more beautiful than pic related.

Where he's utterly correct is
>technical perfection can only create boredrom

Attached: snake_goddess.jpg (395x650, 44K)

Attached: 1390792909800.png (500x377, 269K)

the snake goddess is still a remembered and highly valuable piece of art, though.
That's not a really good comparison.

>That won't sell
They fucking sell Miku merch at my local Wal Mart in the middle of nowhere.

That you don't think technology has a huge effect on art movements and history says you probably shouldn't weigh in on this and just admire the 10,000 or so photo copiers (as in literally copying photos) circulating on instagram and facebook.

CGI actors don't really make sense, in the near term you'd still need humans for the performance which would just make all of Hollywood into voice actors. If at some point technology became so advanced that you could procedurally generate an actor and a convincing performance you'd probably end up with a sentient being anyway.

Not the other user but you could look it up for yourself.

anichart.net/Spring-2019

Here's one I pulled at random from this season anilist.co/anime/101283/Boogiepop-wa-Warawanai

now we enter the portion of the """debate""" where the examples listed don't count for some reason

>comparing art from two different civilizations from two different time periods
>thinking that's Hitchcock
Nice work, retard.

Realistic voice synthesis and CG doesn't really imply sentience in any way. Thats like saying when you watch a regular film the images of the actors are sentient

Well at least it's not (((post-modernism)))

kek
Luark more faggot

I want to PET that cat

Attached: 1545499039029.jpg (720x720, 28K)

No.

>because the main characters will be CGI anyway.
That doesn't mean that every things have to be in CGI. Small Soldiers was fine. And shooting in a decor rather than making it is probably less expensive.

You think this dog is supposed to be realistic?

For what purpose?

The skeletons in Coco were pretty cartoony.

Attached: 000267446hr.jpg (2700x1800, 664K)

To put a same culture comparison, Greek statue are admired for showcasing mastery of its technique, but it's the pots that are most often remembered for it's style and emulated, even in art styles now. Shit, when Disney was designing Hercules, they looked more at the pots for artistic inspiration than the statues.

Attached: Untitled.png (1502x1272, 1.49M)

same

Attached: 97bfe8ad-ca5e-43a5-98bc-7d94ee99939e.jpg (1280x1034, 207K)

He just described modern video games. It sucks when everyone tries to make things look "realistic".

lmao you fuking assblasted those faggots

I really want this movie to bomb but I know deep inside that it's going to easily break the billion dollar mark.

Attached: 1555522933920.jpg (300x300, 13K)

but not far enough

*computer science has come far
jk, its a combined efforts of artistry and graphics research

>Not even going to a beat
>Timon walking normally

WHERE IS THE FUN.

>and a convincing performance

No way a machine digging through a database of emotes would produce anything that could allow a viewer to suspend disbelief. It would necessarily have to understand context which would require some sort of intelligence

I think the problem here is you're thinking of something like what google is doing with speech synthesis, where they're generating speech on the fly. But people
don't do the CG animation for a movie by
procedurally generating it. They have animators that make it. If you wanted to do speech synthesis you would have audio technicians working with vocaloid like programs to create lines. You don't need
a program with some sort of "context" knowledge for that, just like you don't need it for animation.

Remember Scud? Here's him now. Feel old yet?

Attached: nelson.jpg (411x512, 24K)

Aww, what a cute little doggy!

Attached: Kitbull.png (437x351, 124K)

fair enough, my thought was an actual artificial actor rather than a team of engineers/animators.

Honestly though, if a studio went as far as to eliminate actors themselves, why would they stop short of automating all the aspects of the performance? I think you would necessarily see a rise procedurally generated acting as studios seek cheaper ways of producing artificial actors. Why pay a team to produce life like performances when you can get a passible one for a fraction of the cost? At least, that's what I think the logic will be for corporate, to squeeze every drop of efficiency out of less and less investment.

An intelligent program that can create it's own model/rig/texture/animation and composite itself within a live action scene and perform is the natural extension of an artificial actor created by a team.

can't wait for the nostalgia threads complaining movies aren't what they use to be in 2090s before random narrative generators took over.

>art is just a shit version of having eyes
this quote belongs in a museum

youtu.be/gows7iOoqaU
Watch this. All the way through. Then come back.

STUPID DOG

Attached: 4068590684.jpg (852x480, 30K)

YOU MADE ME LOOK BAD

Attached: Eustace.png (500x359, 110K)

Attached: 1552041018420.jpg (2048x2048, 586K)

SOUL versus SOULLESS

Fuck Nu-Pixar

That's a fat useless cat

Hang yourself

Virtual youtubers/singers are already a thing. Someday there probably will be CG celebrities.

The modern art movement is just bullshitting people. Photography doesn't invalidate painting.

Vtubers are already big enough in Japan that they're holding live events, releasing music and promoting products, and have an anime series about them. But this kind of thing is never going to take off in the West.

oWo

>The modern art movement is

Over half a century old, you'd know that if you had an interest in art history instead of culture war.

>Photography doesn't invalidate painting.

No one said it did, photography was faster and cheaper so it bumped illustrators and fine artists out of their traditional roles of creating visual record.

or at least, reuse "acting" assets constantly like video games often do.

>(((post-modernism)))
Man, how obvious it is that most people on Yea Forums have no fucking clue about art.

does Gorillaz count
please stop bullying the cat ;_;

Attached: e373625d-cc2f-48a1-8f7b-a0ee5e974720.jpg (500x471, 38K)

>total artistic degeneracy e.g. people painting some random strokes and calling the work "untitled
If something is a legit NPC opinion it's this

Attached: repres.jpg (640x839, 141K)

Typical leftist reversal of reality. The NPC opinion would be that "modern art" is perfectly fine and perhaps even superior to what came before it.

>Typical leftist reversal of reality.
Thanks you for proving you live your entire life online and sufer from a psychosis where "leftists" rule the entire planet. Go out and ask some normie what they think about abstract art (which you cal "modern art" since you don't actually know shit about art you uncultured pig check what the term actually means you fag) and they will say that even their kid could make something better. Kys you literal pleb bitch.

Attached: youwontevenknowwhothisartistis.jpg (1823x1686, 461K)

FYI this is modern art, you fucking retard

Attached: Paul_Gauguin.jpg (800x624, 141K)

Another popular leftist reversal of reality is to deny their own power and influence.

Kys schizophrenic also stop talking about art since you know nothing about it

You know exactly what people mean by "modern art." You are being dumb on purpose because you can't defend paint splotches and blank canvases.

I said or implied nothing suggest schizophrenia. You are making things up at random because you have no argument.

Yes I can. Sometimes it is not important to paint how things look like but how things feel like. If you can't find feelings and emotions in colors and shapes, it's your problem and not the arts problem.

>I said or implied nothing suggest schizophrenia.
The first thing you did is to start accusing me of being your some sort of enemy seems like paranoid schizophrenia to think that anyone who doesn't think like you or any random person out there is out there to get you and oppose you

It is a painting. It has no free will, it has no agency, and it unless the artist can back it up himself, it doesn’t even necessarily serve as a representation for some idea or concept. It is fucking paint on a canvas.

>It is fucking paint on a canvas.
Once again your problem of being an autist. Cartoons are just drawings why should they evoke any emotion in me?

The colors of everything behind the table look gross and drab.

And? Is art always supposed to be beautiful?

>Sometimes it is not important to paint how things look like but how things feel like
Actually competent artists can accomplish that with actual paintings and not just random lines across the canvas.

You're obviously a leftist but like all leftists you will always deny what you are whenever it's convinient, and then accuse your opponent of being paranoid (this is the technique known as gaslighting).

Because they are built in such a way to resemble humans, animals, or other such characters, and with the support of writers, voice actors, and animators, given an illusion of movement and characterization. A far cry from s bad painting, and getting the two confusing is a mistake only a complete idiot, or someone being willfully obtuse could make

>Actually competent artists can accomplish that with actual paintings and not just random lines across the canvas.
Have you ever heard on entry tier shit like Picasso?

What makes the lines random, other than your assumptions? That's btw the only thing you have, assumptions about art, assumptions about people, you just assume and don't know shit.

Thanks for pointing out why Yea Forums was never good. You have a good day and the rest can get ass cancer.

Then it’s shit. Intentionally making garbage is still making garbage

>bad painting
Your opinion. Sorry that you're a pleb retard.

Why? Sometimes life is ugly so why is it bad to represent the ugliness? Literal brainlet opinion.

They're just fucking lines and paint splotches, blank canvases and literal pieces of trash. It's all a scam and you are just trying to assign meaning and importance where there is none.

What do you know about abstract art? Any painters at all?

Attached: lolplebs.jpg (234x216, 12K)

I know that "modern art" is a scam.

post of the fucking century

>Picasso
>not entry level shit that’s famous for being famous
You can say it represents anything you want, but if you can’t be bothered to pit in the effort to make it look nice it’s still shit

You couldn't name 3 modern artists with a gun to your head, faggot.

define modern. abstract expressionism and monochrome paintings are not made in 2010s, those already existed a long time ago. this painting by Kazimir Malevich was made in 1915.

Attached: 2148_9.jpg (730x720, 86K)

Because ugliness is ugly and no one wants to look at it. Do you need to be explained basic shit you moron?

I don't have to and I don't give a shit.

>b-b-b-bad opinion
Lol, spoken like someone who has terrible taste and knows it deep down.

Attached: E4F3990E-35A3-41CD-8754-64E5A065D9B4.jpg (214x200, 8K)

>define modern
Again, you know precisely what I mean. You're just dancing around because you have no argument.

Why? And once again modern art doesn't mean what you think it means. Pic related is also modern art, retard.

>not entry level shit that’s famous for being famous
I literally said "Have you ever heard on entry tier shit like Picasso? " lmao you're so pissed off that you wont even read what I am saying you goblin mutt

Attached: henri.jpg (800x941, 141K)

maybe someone wants to look at shit
>what are scat fetishists
LITERALLY support the art you like instead of complaining about art you dont like faggot

how is your arguments any better than mine? you're just generalizing modern art for abstract and expressionism, use the right term next time

You sound like you have never watched anything but children's cartoons in your life and I am probably right

>b-but that's not what it means!!
You fuckers always pull this same shit. Always dancing around and presenting moving targets. Because you CANNOT defend "modern art."

Holy shit you don't even know what Picasso's style and artistic goals were. You probably even use Wojack images without knowing he's derived from Picasso. Does this look "random" or like anyone has to tell you the meaning of it?

Attached: download (4).jpg (89x152, 4K)

Fuck your objectives cuck

I already did. You just don't agree with me.

That's an arbitrary criteria.
The statues were the thing being emulated for centuries during the Renaissance, the earthenware is more emulated now mostly to intentionally invoke classical Greece.

So you admit you know absolutely nothing about the thing you're decrying with such authority? What a fucking retard.

I admitted no such thing, retard.

>I can't even name any modern artists
>but I TOTALLY know all about modern art guys
>inb4 "I didn't not name them because I don't know them, I-I just don't feel like it!"

(Saved at a non ant resolution)

Attached: 65c2f497a223b50b8b29b6b6521419de.jpg (474x810, 92K)

>I can't even name any modern artists
They aren't artists. Nobody needs to know their names.

>CG celebrities are the future.
Good, actors are the most overpaid and underworked profession in the arts. The sooner they can be removed from the process all together the better.

Lol

Attached: the nude girl is laughing at you.jpg (800x622, 128K)

I bet that sounded way more badass in your head...

How the fuck was that "badass"?

Not that user but he's right. The modern art movement has become a hot bed of nepotism and loudmouth spergs calling themselves artists. When someone can menstruate on a blank canvas and call it "art" you can definitely tell that artistic merit is at an all time low.

It wasn't it was a comeback someone who self inserts with cartoon children would say

I dunno kid you tell me, you wrote the line.

What modern art movement? The fact that you have no fucking idea what the right terms are prove that you know nothing about art and less about art world,. where do you get your mense psyhcosis from? You saw some picture of some feminist art taken in some small private owned gallery and think that "yes this is the entire art world".

It was me plainly stating something. You're the only one talking about it being "badass."

I'm older than you.

You're both forever dumb children in mind, just like the rest of us.

I'm older than you.

Sure but I didn't just claim people like Frank Quietly and David Mazzuchelli aren't artists on a fucking comics board lmfao.

I do hope so.

user relax, sorry you wasted 4 years of your life and put yourself in debt for a useless art history degree and have to spend your time correcting people on modern art movements on an image board to validate your poor life decisions.

Shitty for you I live in superior europe where I don't have to pay million dollars to get education. Also our art schools aren't the shitty pleb level crap you have over there. Amerimutts get bent.

Also you didn't answer my questions because I am right, you have no touch in art or art world, the closest thing related to "art world" you have is probably seeing some pictures in /pol/ that was taken on some nobodies online portfolios nobody actually sees and who have their exhibitions in sall pubs.

Oh I see now, your just butt hurt that the world doesn't care about anything your nation's made artistically in over two decades. I can see why you might be a little upset.

>look I'm ignorant so you have to be a poor loser
Maybe go to a museum sometime retard. Might unrot your brain.

Once again deflecting because I am right, you can't argue against my words so you create a strawman of me inside your head.

Oh since you don't mind double posting, why not educate us? Could you please name 5 modern artists of worth that haven't worked in film or television? I'd love to validate your art history major.

Here, some easy names you probably recognize:
Van Gogh
Matisse
Gauguin
Munch
Toulouse

>This is a good thing. Cheaper in the long run & they won't need to pay huge salaries to actors
lolno
actors will still get the same pay because you'll have to pay right to use their face, they won't even have to work because someone else will act in their place. So you'll have a bunch of pretty looking dumb models with no acting skills getting Hollywood actor salaries and a bunch of slave labor animators and legitimate actors mocap their puppets for no credit.
Always assume that things will take the worst possible turn.

>t-they're just nobodies! it doesn't matter!
More dumb damage control.

How so? How do some small time artists represent what the whole art world is about? How does some small diy feminist punk's art define the art scene?

Kirby
Miller
Gibbins
Ditko
Sim

You're on a comics board for fuck's sake. You realize comics are a modern art right?

Attached: 1555039013924.jpg (922x715, 46K)

Mind naming an artist from this century?

Why? You asked for modern artists I told you odern artists, not my fault you have no fucking idea what you're talking about

They aren't small-time, they are paraded around in art galleries all over the world. You're lying about them being small-time because you're damage controlling.

oh god you are one of those retards who doesn't understand that people mean contemporary when they say modern
modern art is shit, it's money laundering
everything after impressionism is cancer
there you go

Hahaha

Attached: 1390724692185.jpg (360x480, 35K)

>They aren't small-time, they are paraded around in art galleries all over the world.
Do you have any names, what galleries have they been in?

Yes the evil bad artists who don't have names

And you're one of those retards who have no idea what they're talking about and still insist that you have any authority on this subject.

>it is the people who understand art terminology who are retarded, not me

Please just fuck off already. Everyone here knows what the deal is. "Modern art" is a scam. It's not art. It's often literally trash. You're just here trying to run damage control.

You pragerU graduates can't even define terms but are unterally convinced you know enough to criticize modern art, a term that extends over a CENTURY of art history. What do you know about the french salons? They were saying the same backward shit about matisse here that your saying well...no one in particular.

I think the plebs ITT are just mad they feel somehow tricked by a painting that asks you to interpret it.

Btw the reason I keep insisting on pointing out what modern art actually is to try to expant your stupid ideas of what you think modern art is. Modern art is lot more diverse movement than you think it is, and if you think galleries around the world are just full of abstract art you're wrong.

You want to play a shell game with terminology so nobody will be able to point at the shitty "modern art" and call it out for the shit that it is.

Not my fault you art historians labeled 1860s "Modern" also thanks for posting mostly post impressionist artists that all suck.

>Boogiepop
Truly the height of realism. C'mon man you could have at least picked like Monster or Jin-Roh.

Fiffe
Quietly
Burnham
Scioli
Leon
Again this is a comics board and comics are a form of modern art.

>pragerU
Isn't that just some youtube marketing channel where a bunch of people say some nonsense?

Like, have any of you ever seen some multimedia art? Time-and-space art? Nature art? Do you think artists just use canvases these days? You have very limited idea of hat contemporary art is, you plebs.

They were emulated during the Renaissance because they wanted to bring back the SKILLS of art, but in the long run, it's always STYLE that is more memorable than just being able to perfectly recreate life in art form.

You are literally saying this board shouldn't exist. Both animation and comic books are forms of modern art. You are astoundingly out of your depth.

>that all suck.
Once again your opinion. Your opinion doesn't define their success or importance, also I chose those names so that you would realize that these common names of art history are part of that horrible boogieman modern art,.

>Truly the height of realism.
Did you actually look at it? It is done in a realistic style.

These are terms that existed before you were born, that's like saying I'm tricking you by point at the dictionary.

Again, why bother arguing a position you don't know enough to defend?

>that's the joke

It wouldn't matter, because the guy before had made up his mind.

>terminology exclusively coined to make stupid made up shit sound important is somehow relevant
I don't have any respect for this so I don't care

I don't have an art history degree but I happen to be an artist

>they feel somehow tricked by a painting that asks you to interpret it.
this is my opinion about modern art:
q234529urasdjif83490fsdfasjn089q234fasdjnfas
oh, what's that you're saying? this is unintelligible? but that's just how I express myself. I don't adhere to the standards of language.
You're probably not smart enough to understand anyway

You fucking know 100% that this is not what anyone means by modern art. You loathsome dishonest fuck.

You are playing a shell game and anyone with half a brain can see that.

Those eyes on that dog should have never been approved.

>I happen to be an artist
The art world is shit and art is dead. Since retards like you can be artists it means art no longer has any value. Any art made after 1860 is shit because of you.

>Any art made after 1860 is shit because of you.
totally

Attached: 1550501449187.jpg (625x580, 249K)

Seriously, what's the problem with that? Not my cup of tea but I think if people give her attention and respect for it, is it truly her fault? Audience is after all what truly makes the success, and well if she has an audience, good for her.

It is exactly the point though. This entire conversation has been beating your head against the wall telling you that modern art is not just feminists smearing shit on canvasses and you constantly stick your fingers in your ears and go LALALLALALLALALLALALLALALLA YES IT IS MODERN ART IS SHIT LALALLALALLALAL

There was a time when genius was initially conceived of and lauded, and the cult of personality was beginning to formulate into larger and more ubiquitous forms, with ego being considered not just healthy but an attitude to aspire to, when a panel like this is not only profound but a necessary statement. Today, though, due to the context of its invocation by trite hucksters and plebians on behalf of greater men and women, and by its format itself which is a silly strawman gotcha, that it's seen as laughable and fails to gain any argumentational traction. But it wasn't that long ago and there are many in living memory that experienced that time. I think more than anything it's terrifying that cultural shifts that can throw a panel like this into pathetic irrelevancy in mere decades, though that's getting very far off topic. At it's core I agree with reinhardt, who I assume this is, but I don't think that people in 2019 are comfortable with or even readily accept an inner world wherein their interpretations spontaeously generate given careful measured exposure to gently directed content.You can consider it an ADHD-like deficiency or you could consider it a humble and earthen strength. I'm still not sure.

This entire conversation has been you running damage control and trying to confuse and trick people.

Even if you want to say contemporary art (which is what you actually mean as far as art moments) it also include generes such HYPERREALISM which has existed since the 60s-70s you absolute fucking dunce. Just look up Duane Hanson and stop embarrassing yourself.

Attached: duane-hanson-tourists-ii-1988.jpg (1200x951, 199K)

How is defining an era of art designed to make anything important? Might as well say the same thing about geological eras.

>projecting

>study art history
>Be told what's good and what's worthwhile in a subjective field
>Obtain art degree
>Show off power level with useless historical trivia on an image board
>Still working at a coffee shop
>???
>Profit

>strawmanning because i can't argue against what people are actually saying

Why do you fear knowledge?

Attached: 1387671800283.png (547x513, 291K)

>hey here's some shit that has nothing to do with what we're talking about, looks like modern art has been vindicated!
No.

No I'm not.

And this is what happens when two people living in a golden age of peace and prosperity do when they communicate through the internet:
They try to have the last word and win the internet fight.

So you're so retarded you feel tricked by the basic concept that comics and cartoons are modern art because you had a retarded preconception of what modern art is? They are objectively modern art forms, both younger than impressionism.

>if people give her attention and respect for it, is it truly her fault?
"People" are passive beings, they accept whatever garbage is fed to them provided it's shilled hard enough and put on a pedestal. The visual arts world is dead because "experts" push this garbage instead of ridiculing it.
This is like saying that a shaman using folk medicine to "cure" cancer is just as good as a normal doctor and totally not guilty of malpractice as long as he manages to convince gullible people to ask for his services.

Again, everyone fucking knows what is meant by "modern art," you fucking leftist shills just keep trying to shit up the waters with your semantic shell games and red herrings because that's the only way you can attempt to defend your literal shit smears.

For what it's worth, the guy you're arguing with has at least a position worth hearing, which is to say it's healthy to be skeptical of the various forms of abstraction since the market for artwork is often hand-in-hand with other disreputable practices such as money laundering, funny accounting tricks regarding valuation, etcetera, but I think he's just hyperbolically leaning into cynicism due to board culture. I understand and agree with your position more, user.

Attached: chuck close.jpg (1200x1553, 1.38M)

>This is like saying that a shaman using folk medicine to "cure" cancer is just as good as a normal doctor and totally not guilty of malpractice as long as he manages to convince gullible people to ask for his services.
No it isn't. You're stupid. No one dies because some girl pisses on canvas.

>be insecure tradcuck
>make some retarded comment about modern art on an imageboard dedicated to two forms of modern art
>get called out on being retarded
>chimp out upon realizing that modern art is not just naked feminists bleeding on canvasses and try and convince everyone that this is indeed what modern art is and that Van Gogh and Monet don't count
>still live in mommy's basement
>???
>profit

More fucking bullshit from braindead leftist fucktards who are incapable of making a single honest argument.

I'm starting to think this conversation is full of furry fetish artists who think that it's a leftist feminist conspiracy to keep their dick inflation pictures out of art galleries

>t-that doesn't count

You just can't let go can you? Hanson was contemporaries with the artists you hate so much, you can't deny one just because it blows up your asinine argument. These artists existed TOGETHER, they're apart of the same era. If you want to condemn all of modern art, you can't say that art like this didn't also exist at the same time.

That's fair enough, and I would agree if he said that, but he isn't, he just has his fingers in his ear.

There is zero basis for this. You are just making shit up in a desperate attempt to derail the thread.

Of course it doesn't fucking count. It's not what we are talking about. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about. It's irrelevant. Ergo it doesn't count, for fuck's sake.

>Hanson was contemporaries with the artists you hate so much
And I'm contemporaries with Trump. What about it?

Every fucking time I see some "artist" online screaming about "modern art" and how they are more talented it's some anime doodling wanker with fat fetish or some shit

>my greentext is valid, but your greentext? Hohoho buddy, you're dishonest scum.

>b-but modern art isn't just random shit! h-here's some stuff from /r/art!

>No one dies because some girl pisses on canvas.
Culture? Good taste?

I detest porn but unironically, porn at least takes some skill to pull off and you have to actually get someone's dick hard. With modern art you just splash some paint around and call people who don't like it retards.

That still beats your art history degree, I'm sorry

Attached: 1538324084006.gif (360x270, 1.63M)

You are making this up. You are trying to derail the thread because you have no argument. You are admitting that modern art is shit and indefensible.

I didn't post any greentext.

>modern art is shit and indefensible
How so?

>Culture? Good taste?
If your culture is so weak it dies because of a random girl pissing on canvas good fucking riddance

I've already said why you fucking dishonest fuck.

Why?

>That's fair enough, and I would agree if he said that, but he isn't, he just has his fingers in his ear.

I don't think given the vitriol of the conversation heretofore it is possible for him to point to things like that. You have to read between the lines when he calls it a trick or a shell game, he's referring to confidence men which perform similar feats of asking for buy-ins on bad product. Still, he does seem terribly ignorant of the basis for any of the art he's railing against and the paintbrush he's using is far too large and would lead ANYONE to suspect he has no idea what he's talking about.

I will say that as a conservative in many regards that it's easy to read in political agenda here because the politics that have been espoused almost universally by artists over the past 100 years has been almost uniformly leftist in nature. That said, it's crazy to call it all a wash because one doesn't believe in the politics of a certain culture.

At thisnpoint he has said
>Comics don't count
>Animation doesn't count
>Cubism doesn't count
>Impressionism doesn't count
>Hyper realism doesn't count
Lmao what a retard this tradfag is

>random stuff from /r/art

I'm not certain you could find Hanson on all of reddit, to be frank. But you're just throwing spaghetti at a wall to (you) farm, and I took the bait.

Attached: Capture.png (239x515, 114K)

>r/art
Duane Hanson died before the internet was even invented you retarded fucking casual

Why the fuck would something count when it has nothing to do with what is being talked about, shit-for-brains?

>why would all of these artistic concepts that arose in the era of modern art, usually directly in line with precepts of modern art, have anything to do with modern art

Attached: 1555129867748.jpg (531x374, 34K)

What are you talking about, do you know? You started out with

>Modern art bad

and now you seem to be in the middle shifting goal posts to some other "real" modern art that I'm trying to "hide" (for some reason). I don't care if you don't like Marina Abramović or Piss Christ, but you sound dumb for saying it encompasses all art since the 19yh century.

>And I'm contemporaries with Trump. What about it?

I don't care about bad orange man or that you voted for him. Though it does explain your reactionary stance. Cool I guess.

>b-but modern art isn't just random shit! h-here's some stuff from /r/art!

So what? Are you saying that Duane Hanson wasn't born in the 1920s, and hasn't be making art since WWII? What's your point?

Maybe so, again, I don't really care what art yuo consume at the end of the day, but attributing it to some """post-modern""" jew boogieman is silly.

>these things happened at the same time so they must be the same thing
You fucking idiot.

>why would forms of modern art count in a discussion of modern art
It does make one ponder...

Retard, they didn't just happen at the same time, in some cases they happened in the same fucking HOUSE. Are you fucking kidding me with this?

I take back what I said about this guy, he's an absolute fucking mongoloid. I'm legitimately floored by this staggering ignorance.

Reminder: The original discussion was about how realism is killing style in animation, just to put this with the context of people arguing no other art has value except realism.

>I don't care about bad orange man or that you voted for him. Though it does explain your reactionary stance. Cool I guess.
More treacherous leftist fuckery. I OBVIOUSLY mentioned him as an example to show why your argument is horseshit, and you immediately latch onto le orange man in an attempt to derail the thread as if that had anything to do with my point. Fucking kill yourself. You are fucking disgusting.

It's not the feminist dropping paint from her vagina that is killing culture. It's people teaching gullible retards like you that this shit is culture that is killing culture.

Too bad he missed that train, he would've gained a lot of upboats. I'm sorry for not being aware of this kitsch American pop artist

That's not what modern art means you fucking disingenous fucking fuck. You goddamn fucking liar. You fucking leftist fucks cannot ever be fucking honest about anything for one fucking second.

>these two things happened in the same location so they must be the same thing
hur dur

>I'm sorry for not being aware of any art at all

You don't really sound like you're sorry for being stupid though.

>It's people teaching gullible retards like you that this shit is culture that is killing culture.
Why? Does every other kind of art get destroyed if bunch of this girl's friends go and see her pissing performance? Do you even know her name? If she hold so much power over culture, why don't we know her name?

does this count as modern art

Attached: Capture+_2019-04-23-20-43-23-1.png (588x372, 203K)

>>these two things happened in the same location so they must be the same thing

I've never seen someone scramble so hard, so stupidly, to pretend like these things that directly led into one another, artists that congregated in the same circles and pushed each other to various and distinct forms of modern art, people who spent decades wining and dining together...somehow had nothing to do with one another and that anyone that thought they did was a lying buffoon. You're a god damn piece of work.

Modern art doesn't mean "shitty art by feminists so I win the argument hahaha" retard.

You are trying to conflate unrelated things because you have no argument. You cannot defend your stupid fucking shit smears and piss bottles except through underhanded bullshit like this.

>You don't like it so you're stupid
ayyy I should really make a modern art apologist bingo, you're hitting all the squares

if you put it in a museum and hire some guy to praise it then yes, it's totally great art

creatively bankrupt garbage

That's exactly what it means you dishonest subhuman cretin.

No it doesn't.

Please do yourself a favor and read about Gertrude Stein and come back when you've formulated some more concrete arguments about the jewish conspiracy to make art that you don't like, you petulant, retarded nigger.

Jej

Show me all the piss bottle shit smear artists that are destroying the culture. If they're so fucking powerful and famous, why don't we all know their names?

No, it doesn't.

Please do yourself a favor and hang yourself, you retarded nigger.

>hahaha nobody is destroying any culture hahah you're so paranoid
Kikes up to their usual tricks.

Names bitch?

Chris Ofili and Andres Serrano are whom he desperately wants to point to but due to a lack of knowledge or interest in learning, never could. But even then he couldn't actually explain why.

Big talk for a mental deficient. Use google.

if i hire someone to like objectively good, hyper realism art, does that mean it's modern art as well

Attached: Screenshot_2019-01-17-18-00-09-1.png (720x682, 566K)

That piss christ is actually cool looking photo, piss or not.

>if people don't know the names of prominent international bankers then that must mean they have no influence on anything
Yeah that's how it must work!

Projection.

hyper realism art is about as artistic as piss smearing
objectively good art doesn't need support from a paid critic because a characteristic of good art is that it speaks for itself.

What is there to learn, you fucking kike? They aren't artist. They don't produce art. They are fucking scammers.

>f people don't know the names of prominent international bankers then that must mean they have no influence on anything
HAHAHA you're so stupid, do you think art works like banks? That maybe when it comes to culture and art, names are little more important than in bank world?

Hahaha you're so stupid, did you think I was drawing a direct comparison between the two? More dishonest kikery. You have zero legitimate arguments so this is what you have to continuously resort to.

You've demonstrated no evidence at all that you know a damn thing about any of the modern art that has been discussed here. My writing you off as a sub-65 IQ abortion-that-lived is based on careful and measured analysis of your posts. The only thing I want to project in your general direction is a wild lark into your mother's disposition that reminds her that she doesn't need to keep you in her basement past age 30.

but the definition of modern art is "art that is praised by some critic that the artist hire" like what said

Attached: 767d7dce-3bbe-46ee-9caf-c6a42761ed98.jpg (1152x1280, 124K)

You've demonstrated no evidence at all that anyone needs to bother with learning anything about this so-called art, you fucking sub-65 IQ abortion.

I think I'm beginning to understand why artists across the ages have always been so cloistered.

>Yea Forums is fucking retarded about art
In other news, water is wet.

I feel like I'm talking to a bot at this point.

Attached: what the fuck.png (274x342, 99K)

Do you have any mental health diagnoses

Yes anyone who doesn't accept your fucking bullshit kikery has to be a bot.

Projection.

It's part of the modern art apologist bingo
>come back when you have an art history degree like me
>you don't know the reasoning behind it
>you are too stupid to understand
>there are many people who like it so it's legitimate
It's basically what a quack astrologist would tell you if you call her a scammer.

In the end, it's incoherent rage

By acting coy you're just embarrassing yourself. You know exactly what people mean with modern art. It's an umbrella term for the creatively bankrupt shit that is peddled to the masses in order to destroy culture.
Either way I give up on this conversation. In the end it's always marketing that wins, marketing rules the world. It's no use to talk to people with addled brains because you've been brainwashed by whatever school you went to

No, I mean that you couldn't even manage to formulate your own vitriolic verbage, you just had to package mine up in a similar arrangement and syntax and repost it. I'm happy that I've graduated from retard to shadowy pilpul-spewing member of the jewish conspiracy though, when do I get to be a member of the 1%?

>modern art apologist
wew lad is this word salad

>No, I mean that you couldn't even manage to formulate your own vitriolic verbage
Why the fuck should I bother? What does this have to do with the thread? Why do you keep trying to change the topic?

I'll use art history graduates from now on

still sound like a paranoid freak though

Tradfags raging about shit they don't even begin to encroach on understanding is hilarious. Best subject is short hair on women, they spin their tails something fierce when you point out that Hitler's wife had short hair.

The only thing that needs to be understood here, you fucking kike, is that "modern art" is a fucking scam.

But people whine about financial overlords like the Rothschilds, Soros and Powell all the fucking time, way to make his point for him

By the way I think this thread itself is modern art the way it got derailed from the original subject (realism killing style) to modern art debate (only realism is great art modern art bad) is absolutely beautiful. If something is performance art it's this

>I derailed the thread

You've been reeeee-ing for 100 posts about how MoMA is conspiring to make you sad and confused.

And?

>Did you actually look at it? It is done in a realistic style.
I've seen it before. There's elements of realism but I'd hardly say that it counters that other guy's point.

Complete lie conjured from thin air, but that's all you kikes can do.

It counters it perfectly well, it's just that you don't even know what it is.

>j-jews
>l-leftists
Gas /pol/ fucking now

Attached: 49072871_2221280918112393_5572384844362547200_o.jpg (2048x1953, 298K)

>Either way I give up on this conversation.

Reposting the same sort of 'YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN AND ALLOW ME TO RESTATE MY INITIAL ARGUMENT WITHOUT ADDRESSING ANY OF THE FACETS OF YOURS' is not a conversation and it never was. But you haven't even given up on this conversation because you WILL respond to the posts of me and others who rightly and justly shit on you with no reservation, because you are an animal and you absolutely cannot help yourself.

Abstraction and what you refer to as 'modern art' (again, with too broad a brush) was a long process towards the incomprehensible canvas that began in many ways as a reaction to the popularization and distribution of tintype photography and the very real concerns that it brought as an invalidation to artistic pursuit in general, and developed over half a century, branching out in many forms before you actually saw it reach the sort of 'evil kike hucksterism' of pure abstraction in the mid 30s and early 40s. Some of the best artists of the century, such as Picasso, Magritte, Kandinsky and others were the ONLY ones who could venture further and further into these various forms of abstract art because it was known that because they were superior traditional artists that what they were attempting in abstraction weren't mere meaningless scribbles.

You cannot argue this because you lack the knowledge to dispute it, and you cannot help yourself to reply to this post with meaningless drivel because you aren't human.

That's more of a critique of the economic conditions that incentivize those behaviors than the art itself though.

>abstract painting is going to destroy our culture
keep being delusional man, it's hilarious

Attached: cb1ff47a-3ee1-40f9-8d19-61ac85da810e.png (155x225, 41K)

You've yet to name an evil feminist artist destroying the world?

It's the kikes that should be gassed.

And?

True, but it's debatable how close to the origin point to the work itself that those economic conditions existed, and someone arguing against those forms of art and that cabal of artists could make a measured argument that they were there from the very beginning, if they weren't busy shitting themselves in this very thread. At one point I was willing to give that guy the benefit of the doubt and play devil's advocate but no longer.

>finally just going to nonreply mode after running out of retardation
I know the tantrums come with the autism but try and take a deep breath next time okay?

What nonreply mode? What tantrums? Are you unable to go five fucking seconds without lying?

Dude the guy defined modern art as abstraction while refusing to consider forms of abstraction modern art. How could you ever give him any kind of benefit?

I'm not paranoid. I just went to a few expositions like Rothko and always wanted my money back. I looked at Picassos and I thought they were garbage. Without the name plate on display people would probably think the same, but they've been indoctrinated to worship these people as the best artists ever.
There is no "learning" that will help me like this stuff. Art is communication, that's the point of art, it's a language.

Abstraction existed way before modern art. I am not shitting on modern art because it's abstract, as I said before I think hyperrealism is just as terrible. Abstraction is just a tool they use to justify creative bankruptcy, much like hyperrealism is a tool they use to complement for a lack of voice. Do they teach about voice in art school? My favorite visual artist is an expressionist.

We need 50 CCs of demerol here! Traddie getting maddie again!

Where did I define anything as abstraction?

The fuck are you babbling about now you crazy kike?

This isn't about style, but detail.
An achievment of detail is now possible. With this detail you can still do style. I mean Incredibles 2 and Coco and definitely Spiderverse had styles AND details.

I made a mistake.

>Abstraction existed way before modern art.
You knew exactly what I meant when I referred to abstraction and this sort of kikey pilpul is exactly why you people need to be gassed. Do you see how shitting on nuance ruins the conversation now?

Even the reduction of directed meaning (which you refer to as voice) was a conscious choice of most of the artists engaging it. Claiming it's creative bankruptcy here would be to open the door to referring to various ateliers or guilds as bankrupt because they all just did the same things all their contemporaries would do, even if that sort of pointless semantics that you're so fond of are essentially baseless and certainly not useful to having any sort of conversation about it. Why can't you just be satisfied that you don't like it rather than calling it all jewish artifice and trickery?

He's having jew delusion again sir, we may need to operate
hell, this plays directly into your monumental persecution complex doesn't it?

Muh jews

What persecution complex? Why do you just keep pulling random shit out of your ass?

You think artists are out to destory society and that the jews have created an artistic conspiracy to do it, how THE FUCK is that not a persecution complex?

I'm not the guy who says kike left and right
That's another user

How the fuck is that a persecution complex?

I don't know how the guy you're replying to could have missed that since you actually have a grasp of basic artistic concepts.

Do you have brain damage, a developmental disability or dementia? Need to ask before you reveal youve been merely pretending to be retarded here.

Projection.

...

If you think about it this is the most Yea Forums thread ever, one angry idiot that barely understands the medium he is angry about and half a dozen others trying to talk him off a ledge.

We factualy know WHY Pixar pushes for realism nowadays (they have ALWAYS pushed for more and more detailed material for the sake of looking visually impressive to normies, sometimes at the cost of aesthetical barfs like GODO DINOSAUR) yet nobody has actualy brought that up because everyone is too busy playing retarded.

Oh don't act above it all, you're in this thread too.

Animals don't dance.
They communicate in ways that are easily understandable by human beings if translated and even use the equivalent of human idioms. They may even sing. But they don't dance, that's too unrealistic.

No.

>You will not post any of the following outside of Yea Forums: Trolls, flames, racism, off-topic replies, uncalled for catchphrases, macro image replies, indecipherable text (example: "lol u tk him 2da bar|?"), anthropomorphic ("furry") or grotesque ("guro") images, post number GETs ("dubs"), or loli/shota pornography.
Get fucked, tranny janny.

youtube.com/watch?v=2ymWOc8WYXI

[spoiler/]read it in his voice [/spoiler]

[/spoiler]read it in his voice [/spoiler]

GOD DAMN IT CAN'T GET THE SPOILER RIGHT

Ctrl + S in the reply box.

>typing out the spoiler tag

I see what you did there.

Attached: 1498507494914.png (639x480, 428K)

Are the trumptard and eurofag still having a dick measuring contest despite the fact their both cunts?

Skud's face is like some kind of reaction image.

That's what I tell him all the time. You stupid dog, you stupid dog!

He don't do nothin right.

Attached: Mr_Eustace_Bagge.jpg (990x1190, 151K)

That is not animation but ok...

Attached: OK_thumb.jpg (600x600, 32K)

...

Yes.

I might be a cunt but I'm still right

Attached: 1539870893403.jpg (321x322, 25K)

...how many hours ago was that?

I don't give a fuck. If I want to see cats, I look outside.

Gonna wallpaper it when I find something good

Attached: 1511723505385.png (1980x1080, 1.46M)

Reminder this is literally what Hitler believed.

You say that as if it's a bad thing, kike

holy fucking shit guys

you know what Hitler also believed in?

BREATHING!

yes.

based and dare I say it, incredibly redpilled

You would be right if you were talking about any property other than Toy Story which was made to show off and push the limits of CG animation.

>František Kupka

Attached: 1554609113764.jpg (336x352, 22K)

based baitposter

Why do faggots always seem to believe this? Realism is the starting point and not the pinnacle. Everything branches off of realism, not leads up to it.

Have you seen his paintings? I wouldn't say they're realistic.

Literally where you do you even find modern art, how does it spread?

Is that why paintings turned into shit on a canvas when the camera was invented?