What are some books that help explain the appeal of popular contemporary art...

The same way you come to appreciate Moby Dick and Ulysses when the layman thinks they're just a boring, long dad-books. This same exact "It's all just intellectual posturing and gate keeping" attitude is EXACTLY how the average person feels about difficult literature. You must first consume it, then reflect on it, then seek and reconcile alternative opinions, and finally converse on it with another who is equally as invested in it.

shelf threads exist to provide inspiration
>read that, read that, read that
>not read that
>new favourite thing discovered

this is the book you are looking for
although the chances are you won't like it

Attached: 81m+6xJu3XL.jpg (860x1200, 277K)

Most people can appreciate art from most periods. What is it about art from the last 100 years that is so divisive? Or is it always like that?
I can read about and read great literature and then appreciate it. Same with music and other art forms. But with contemporary art, I can read about it, people can explain it to me, and I understand what they mean and where they coming from, but really, it's just shit. It just seems like people trying to justify their paychecks.
My 5 year old did do that.

Depends on what you call contemporary art. Me, I try to focus on easel painting and filter out the conceptualist noise, since most of it is "we live in a society" tier. But it's hard, I can tell barely 3 living painters whose works genuinely excite me beside Jonathan Wateridge.

Attached: abc4bf1ca74d82167c8dd910cf38ad55.jpg (1000x690, 48K)

buttplug

>What is it about art from the last 100 years that is so divisive?
Because we're still in the process of finding out what art is enduring art and what is part of the zeitgeist? The vast majority of art that was produced in history is unappealing as well. There was a time in recent history where leading photographers literally, unironically thought color photography was a gimmick and wouldn't produce good art. When J. M. W. Turner started becoming more and more expressive, people thought he was turning senile and couldn't comprehend why such a talented artist wouldn't aim for perfect realism.

Attached: 'Sea_View'_by_J._M._W._Turner,_Scottish_National_Gallery.jpg (956x640, 672K)

good post

I liked Bacon and Freud very much.
Among the living, I prefer Vladimir Velickovic.

>all art sucks because stupid people are getting college degrees
No, it's a bad post with a bad opinion. 99% of art today is trash because 99% of art has always been trash in every medium, at every point in history forever. There's nothing special about the modern era of art that changes this - you're looking at yesterday's art as if all the bad art that was produced and forgotten wasn't made at all. In a decade it will seem like the artists who survived from today were the artists who were always going to survive and it was always clear that their work stood above everyone else's, but it's never like that in the moment.

>I can tell barely 3 living painters whose works genuinely excite
It's because you're a pleb. Contemporary realism is alive and well and if you can't find a more than 3 out of thousands of artists that excite you, you're an entry level dilettante.

You need not read any book to understand contemporary art. All that must be known is the innate definition of art itself. Art is an external manifestation of what is internal in the soul. When the soul is shriveled and drained of life so too will be the creations of the person. The modern "artist" is a reprehensible husk of a human being so they make disgusting creations which will only communicate with others who are likewise wicked and vile. Look at the venerated works of the past and compare them with the trash installed in modern museums: what differences would you expect to see in the artists?

I once wept openly in front of a particular painting and I will remember that feeling as long as I live. I urge you to locate a gallery which showcases authentic art and physically attend it. Maybe take a trip to a place which is the home of famous architecture and see if you feel the same resonance people felt 500 years ago. Never set foot in a """modern""" art museum and never give them a cent of your currency.

tl;dr Art is a reflection of what is inside us. When we are corrupt and evil our art will be as well. When we are complete and feeling it will be transmitted through our works.

Except this is clearly not true. Caravaggio was a certified psycho, Bouguereau was obviously a pedo, Michelangelo had a mad craving for boipussy, etc. If you think there's any connection between the morality of an artist and his output you're a top-shelf retard.

I should've been clearer about the underlying economic mechanism which is the student loan scheme. That is universities having an interest in inflating their student body by redefining standards. The universities themselves are creating the demand for shit art which in essence is a pyramid scheme targeting student loans. It's strange how people do not comprehend this somewhat simple dynamic.

ITT: brainlets who can't into concepts

I intentionally never once used the word "morality" in my post.

When you're referring to people as 'wicked and vile' and talking about how 'corrupt and evil' they are you obviously imply morality. Your semantic weasling aside, it's still stupid. Again, someone like Caravaggio was high up on the 'corrupt and evil' charts but it hardly reflects in his art.
More than that, it's quite demonstrably true that someone's 'internal state' (whatever that means' has little bearing on their capacity to create skilful art.

What contemporary artists do you guys like?

Mark Dion
James Turell (Roden Crater has the potential to be the greatest artistic achievement of this generation)
Olafur Eliasson
Hito Steyerl (her writings are incredible too)
Jon Rafman
Kevin Beasley
Earth art is pretty compelling

Overall I think it's a pretty good time for art. I have no shortage of good shows to see in the Boston-New York circuit. Most of the criticism I hear about "modern art" brings up the same tired collection of Duchamp, Hirst, Koons, Artist's Shit, Serrano, etc. or whatever random pseud grad student they find online. Sure, a lot of the bad art nowadays tries too hard to shock or is cloyingly political, but the avant-garde hasn't given up quite yet

Idk shit about art but that pic is pretty nice to look at desu. I've always liked minimal stuff so a lot of modern stuff appeals to me. Whether theyre worth their price tag is another story but theres definitely an aesthetic there. Sorry I cant articulate this better

stupid and shortsighted take on that post.

>speaking about art and using words like 'wicked and vile' or 'corrupt and evil'.

kys mongrel

Attached: DsF8oBmVYAALXMK.jpg (1100x830, 209K)

t. burned by getting a joke degree and thinks all failures in intellectual pursuits are derived from the greed in the American university system
by the same logic, countries that have more strict universities would be producing a ton of "traditional" artists of note. It's curious that Japan produces some of the world's best contemporary, abstract artists, then.

Attached: 2018_05_07_45471_1525692255._large.jpg (1280x959, 463K)

Mind you that pic related is the historic competition. Considering population increase, material wealth and technical development we should be able to produce works like these in the thousands.

Attached: bernini-ratto-di-proserpina.jpg (1000x797, 149K)

>the money laundering meme
Conventional money laundering is so easy, and when done right, impossible to detect, that it makes zero sense to use large, difficult to transport, high profile artworks to launder money. It's too risky police wise, and due to the friable nature of art, too risky financially
t. accountant who has actually laundered money

Attached: The_Rape_of_Proserpina.jpg (979x1306, 783K)

Attached: Gian-lorenzo.jpg (1846x1755, 270K)

>development we should be able to produce works like these in the thousands.
We can, except the difference is that instead of using marble, artists are using ZBrush or Maya. Welcome to the 21th first century.

Attached: prometheusSmallside_wm-763275.jpg (900x894, 78K)

contemporary art simply means destruction of all actual values, virtues and skills.
the people who profit from this are therefore the valueless, the immoral and the unskilled.
no one outside of mainstream medias little thought-bubble even cares.

Even though there is something to be said for wanting to understand the current art climate, your pursuit of art should be for what gives you the greatest joy and pleasure to see- it should be an innate certainty.
My best advice (if you don’t already), is to try painting yourself. I believe painting and drawing will completely transform museum visits as well as every day life and it’s an incredibly fulfilling activity.
This book is terrible. It’s for normies - a few short captions per page of 100 different significant art works. I would rather consider pic related, it’s by artists, for artists. The best possible source. Of course you can decide if they’re still being pretentious jerks but at least it’s a primary source.

Attached: 57E1EE74-E9AE-41D3-9866-12B57F6118BE.jpg (326x499, 23K)

I understand that talent still exists and has been drawn into profane avenues but the point is that our public space and our cultural institutions have been inverted to now proclaim grotesque incompetence, malignant subversion and voidness of meaning as the pinnacle of artistic achievement. It's not just the visual arts, the same goes for the more resistant literary and musical domains.

Attached: PilgrimChurch.jpg (3444x2586, 1.46M)

Has anyone in this thread sold a piece of their art?

Attached: gogh.jpg (612x763, 161K)

But that'd be too easy. I prefer to be a broke neet living with my parents and complaining about how Western Civilization is being destroyed by people doing things I don't like.

Always this fucking statue gets posted when people talk about modern art, as if the slight indentation on the thigh is the pinnacle of everything. We need to move forwards, not go backwards. Metamodernism > post-modernism > backwardism

Attached: 1553184879327.gif (332x332, 3.71M)

You don't understand the problem. There is an infrastructure behind great art, not just patronage but rigorous training and education and underlying that a collective civilizational effort to strive towards truth and beauty. There's a cancer within our civilization which the individual cannot escape. I don't see another explanation for the abscence of individuals like Bach, Bernini or Shakespeare in our time.

Oh damn

Attached: images.png (765x401, 6K)

realism is boring.
REALISM IS BORING, also art has no value, so it can be bought by anyone for any price they and the artist can agree upon.

Maybe Bach, Bernini and Shakespeare wasn't as fucking awesome as you think they are, and as you view them as isolated geniouses removed from any sort of context centuries later, they seem like bigger geniouses than they actually were. There are still plenty of people who go to real art schools and obsess over learning to draw hands for 10 years.

It's a beautiful scuplture, I could've just as well posted Apollo&Daphne or the blessed Ludovica. It's not about moving backward or forward it's about finding meaning in our existence.

god, using that pic as an example of Great Art™ is the best way to immediately out yourself as a pseud. reverse image search it on r*ddit and you'll find your exact sentiment expressed by droves of mongrels. don't get me wrong, the sculpture is a masterpiece, but that exact detail becoming the exemplar of muh technique is a meme so pervasive it makes you think plebs are a single hivemind

>consumption of a work of art
>consumption

I hear this language used about art and knowledge commonly, and I think it is indicative of a troublesome way we perceive our relationship to art and the world that is endemic in the greater cultural view that has become bourgeois and consumerist

>muh renaissance statue gives my life meaning
jesus christ

I have eyes and ears. I'm not claiming to be a great art expert but in the way my body and soul reacts I can perceive the difference between the garbage of today and the divine beauty of the things left to us by those who came before. You might not share that view but I think most people do.

I understand that it is a common example but it is a common example because it is widely perceived as overwhelmingly beautiful. The pseud-hunt on here is rather boring.

You're forgetting that nature is still the most beautiful thing in the world. Nothing man has ever done can compare

>popular
it's not popular, it's a money laundering scheme for the elites

popular contemporary art are memes

Attached: 41784198._UY500_SS500_.jpg (500x500, 42K)

>in the way my body and soul reacts I can perceive the difference between the garbage of today and the divine beauty of the things left to us by those who came before
the hellenophile contemporaries of DiVinci said the same exact thing
>the past is better and everything today sucks!
alright, dad, assisted suicide is legal in Oregon so no need to live in the present anymore if it's so offensive to your cultured eyes

Attached: fmliz71tkfk21.jpg (1574x1562, 242K)

contemporary art is a art in the same sense that trolling is a art, not in the sense actual paintings are art

>shelf threads exist to provide inspiration
same with contemporary art, it's all about art critics and the public coming up with clever intellectual justifications for caring for the art

the actual art and pieces are just meaningless props

art of the last 100 years is not art, it's just public performance or bad comedy

Watch this
youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

This is art

thinking there's any kind of continuity from Turner to expressivism or conceptualism is retarded

the turner prize just stole his name after he was dead without asking if he cared about garbage being displayed in museums

Walter Benjamin - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Fred Ross - The Philosophy of the ARC

>it’s by artists
depends on your definition of artist

>boomer university
even when they are right, they are wrong

The point is that many enduring artists are despised and discredited by the public while they're working. If you refuse to give something a chance because it immediately turns you off, you're part of the narrative that will make the lives of the artists of today into the compelling story attached to their immortal works.

Goddamn I fucking hate PragerU
Especially because my dad swears by it
He didn't believe me when I told them they don't give sources

nobody cares about current """artists""" and nobody ever will, they are just stealing prestige by self-identifying as something they aren't

But that's a bit of a meme isn't it? That which is widely and in perpetuity perceived as great art has almost always found appreciation in its own time. Obviously there are exceptions but I don't see that much private art discovered in some attic which is then recognized as the work of a genius a hundred years later. I think these sorts of institutions are just part of the scheme which I described earlier in this thread. Looking at their selection if feel like a nomination is a tremendous insult to an artist.

Attached: Hamilton.jpg (660x371, 64K)

Look up Arthur Danto. Marcel duchamo has some stuff on this as well.

>Bach, Bernini or Shakespeare
Both Bach and Bernini were very controversial at their times, and Shakespeare was pretty much seen as the 16th century version Michael Bay(or maybe Spielberg, if you are feeling forgiving). I mean, there is a lot wrong with modern art, but "muh Truth and Beauty" have little to do with it.

Shakespeare wrote almost exclusively in iambic pentameter, Bach's music is almost all I-IV-V based, Bernini made classical greek statues with glitter. Maybe you shouldn't trust your (untrained) eyes and ears so much.

No, I'm not saying I don't enjoy these three people but to elevate them to godlike geniouses that will never come again-status is fucking plebeian as shit.

>I think these sorts of institutions are just part of the scheme which I described earlier in this thread
you sound like a schizophrenic conspiracy theorist. There's no "establishment" ruining art for money. Art and money have always been tied and people hate artists while they're alive and then deify them as soon as they die if they were any good. It's nothing new.

It's not about something being controversial it's about something being crap. For some reason everyone thinks that I am not aware that not every great artists was universially revered in his lifetime. See, personally I think for example that Mozart is either overrated or just doesn't speak to me but that doesn't mean that I do not recognize the level of talent or genius behind his efforts - but Mozart wasn't shitting in tin cans or throwing trash on the museum floor. There's a wide discrepancy in judging art which affirms objective standards and today's random insanity. No one ever thought Bernini couldn't handle marble whether they morally approved of his work or not.

I think truth and beauty are essential to the problem since those have become consciously subverted. And obviously that isn't just a construction but also a stage in our cognitive progression. The death of God and all that.

You misunderstand what I said. It's not a conspiracy it's the spontaneous movement of capital. You propably recognize this process in politics. +no, people do not hate artists while they're alive.

It's more about the time and effort spended in expanding the experience of art.

communicating that art is dead by flexing on those who take it seriously. that's the whole meme.

Doesn't that comment seem silly to you? It's like saying a painter is shit because he only ever painted on canvas. It's such a banal statement, is that what they teach you?

>but Mozart wasn't shitting in tin cans or throwing trash on the museum floor.
sounds exactly like something Mozart would do desu

say hi to the fbi

I'm not very familiar with contemporary artists but I like tend to like the one's with a performative aspect. There's just something 'tangible' about Chris Burden letting his friend shoot him in the arm, or pic related locking himself in a cage for year. It's the severity of the act that interests me.

Attached: tehchinghsieh-010.jpg (1280x853, 206K)

Maybe for fun. But not as a public performance or something he's elevating to the level of one of his musical works.
Patrons would've stopped commissioning from him and he'd be censured by officials and the church. Modern and performance art only finds acceptance because the whole industry has turned into a money-laundering scheme.

No? I don't know much about Bernini or Shakespeare but I know a lot about Bach. There were plenty more interesting and talented composers before and after him.
> But not as a public performance or something he's elevating to the level of one of his musical works.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leck_mich_im_Arsch

Seeing out loud by Jerry Saltz

Attached: BA9E582D-A162-4791-A230-9EED085CEDF7.jpg (1125x1483, 2.28M)

what does “corrupt” and “evil” mean to you?

That too

Attached: C7281795-9D13-4D42-9948-9FCA75CEFCDA.jpg (603x899, 87K)

Agreed on Steyerl. I like Ed Atkins, whose writing (prose poetry almost) is also very interesting; and Seth Price.

trolling > paintings

Attached: emperor-has-no-clothes.jpg (2057x1851, 412K)

Yes, me. Painting student, sold one small painting for 120$.

thats a big condom

Money laundering done properly is impossible to prosecute, even if they know you're doing it. You have to get greedy or make a stupid mistake. Eg with Al Capone they knew exactly how and where he was laundering his money, but found it impossible to build a case, so got him for not paying tax on the money they knew he had laundered.

So this is difficult to put into words and easily declared to be some pseud statement + I've been mostly ranting about technical compentency - but an artist isn't great because of his pure technical ability or his inventiveness. Obviously it plays a role in being able to express himself and show us something new but he also has to capture something that for lack of a better word is 'true'. I don't know if Bach had the greatest technical ability or if some random person before or after him was able to create something more technically satisfying. What I do know is what happens to me when I hear Bach. Again I do not possess the words to describe it differently: to me he is the greatest artist who ever lived because he can move me closest to God. I am deeply moved by what he has created and cannot accurately express what it means to me that something like it exists. It is of no relevancy to me if another musician is in objective technical terms 'superior'. The same goes for a renaissance painting which in technical competency appears far weaker than a modern hyperrealist painting. If it doesn't move me I have to categorize it as the lesser work. Whatever it is these great artists tap into, in our time it seems lost. Obviously I recognize the subjective element in this evaluation which is why I mostly talked about the subversive and incompetent art propped up by the establishment.

my personal journal to be quite frank

testing
testing
testing
testing

Well, look, we have our very own Malevich amongst us...!

>meaning is for incels and losers

Attached: NPCsCave.png (1436x1105, 1.96M)

This new clown avatar scares me so much...he's seemingly come out of nowhere and shaken up the entire meme culture here...he doesn't fit any previous paradigm and it's clear that he's not supposed to...please don't give in to nihilism guys...I know the world is chaos right now but it won't improve by submitting to the absurd...

take a detail look at the history of art itself
specifically the modalities of art as a decorative end, art as a technical process, and art as a focused aesthetic end meant to be enjoyed as the sole visual focus of an experience

historically you can see a movement across the modalities, from early church architecture, triptychs, and so on, where the art is purely a means to a symbolic end (purely decorative ends generally having some sort of mood or idea as their objective)
with artists like el greco and van der weyden (saint luke painting the virgin), you have art starting to move into a mode of being a possible main focus for our attention, for a period of more than a second. the art sends a message, and we appreciate the art itself insofar as it effectively communicates a message or the mood of a scene. i see the emergence of this modality as the birth of the artist proper, separate from a craftsman.
but the sense in which an artist is a craftsman is not far beyond us, because the next major modality is that of the message of an art object as something regarding art itself. dada, especially duchamp's fountain, and related movements are the early exemplars of this modality. this sort of art may be interested in sending a message or mood unrelated to art (sexual desire, fear, social commentary (hannah hoch's dada kitchen knife)), but frequently these pieces primarily have commentary about art, its culture and craft as their primary goal. the premier example of this is duchamp's fountain as i previously mentioned. another good example of this is braque's 1912 painting 'violin and palette'. violin and palette communicates a scene of some curtains, a table, a violin, and a palette as 'simply' as possible, but it is interesting for many viewers insofar as it demonstrates something about the craft of art itself: that it is potentially possible to eliminate the picture plane, and much of the particular form and perspective we have when looking at an object, and still communicate a 'scene.'
while fountain and violin and palette both look boring as fuck to someone without any historical knowledge, if you're familiar with the history and craft of art they can be absolutely fascinating because the majority of their message is commentary about this craft itself. from this it also stands to reason that these sorts of creations would be absolutely uninteresting for people not schooled in this way

i also won't deny that people in every place in the art world don't do posture and consume for status, but there's a lot to appreciate there regardless of the idiocy in the art world

additionally, if you're musically schooled, a similar phenomenon is exhibited with schoenberg's a/tonality and cage's 4'33"

there is another motion to look at, that of the craft of the arts itself advancing almost to perfection in terms of mass appeal. creating something purely aesthetically appealing now belongs in the realms of graphic design, pornography and pop music

>violin and palette
Where's the violin?

it's the figure eight shape made out of rectangles in the lower left, the straight line coming up to that to the conch shell kinda shape, the two sets of four parallel lines put in the horizontal center of the figure eight shape, and the S-holes on either side of the previously mentioned sets of lines in the figure eight.
i hope that makes sense

Attached: vp.jpg (467x1010, 230K)

Try the Culture of Critique.

based and romancepilled

>You're forgetting that nature is still the most beautiful thing in the world. Nothing man has ever done can compare

There are many artists who would strongly disagree with you.

Yes. I’ve sold a few prints and some photo books. Starting a fully-funded MFA in the fall, planning to become an Art Chad and sell pieces for outrageous sums

Mein Kampf.

you got memed too hard, """artists""" have memed you into thinking normal people used to think all new art was garbage when it appear but that is not the case. it's just wishful thinking

>Mozart wrote once a joke song, so it's totally the same as literal garbage
C O P E
O
P
E

basically this, history won't remember the last 100 years of art except as bad comedy maybe

so are you saying that current art is just terrible and lazy literature?

sounds like empty gimmicks desu

>artists
so-called, or more accurately so-self-called

>2019 and still discussing the validity of modern art when the CIA have admitted it was a forced meme

i think there was never a discussion, normal people just get dumbfounded and remove themselves from having anything to do with art, and the ones who stay around are just memed so hard that you could basically convince them of literally anything as long as it was trendy

they started funding artists who had already been doing their thing for years and had little to no influence in the direction or program of the artists and movements they financed. the only thing it achieved was staving off potential soviet influence on art movements, but what an abstract expressionist really be interested in soviet patronage (and would the soviets really want to sponsor abstract art)? this attempt at delegitimizing contemporary art as a cia machination completely misses the plot, the artistic tendencies that long predate the cia's programs and the way the artistic market and speculation has worked for decades.

>James Turell (Roden Crater has the potential to be the greatest artistic achievement of this generation)

That really is beautfiul.
Would be funny if this is seen as high art 50 years from now and Kanye West was the one to patronage it.

You're a fucking pleb

What a trivial post

>artistic tendencies
it was never art and it will never be

it takes time to break the conditioning but it will start to happen more and more now that the mainstream has no credibility anymore, nobody actually thinks this is art

it was just the capitalist commodification of art as the meaningless exchange of prestige tokens

Just watch ignorant youtube videos criticizing it

youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
youtube.com/watch?v=KAExa9P7hME
youtube.com/watch?v=ANA8SI_KvqI

I can see how low-effort dada shit in 1912 could be considered thought provoking, boundary-pushing etc, but doing same thing in 2019 it's only stale, pretentious and cringy. You're an idiot for producing it and you're an idiot for buying into it.

wasnt trying to relate it to writing, because i dont know or care about anything but philosophy
i find it more interesting than that but you dont have to
i dont really think an art object or performance is legitimated by how much effort is put into it. im only interested in what i can or cant get out of it as an observer
i cant comment on 21st century art because i know fuckall about it. ill provisionally agree that if anyone is making dada in the same way duchamp and hoch were in the 10s presently itd look fucking stupid.
the funny thing about everyone who ive ever heard express this sort of viewpoint has fuckall for art history knowledge, especially ironic given their apparent reverence for the history of art.

Hegel would also disagree

>i dont really think an art object or performance is legitimated by how much effort is put into it. im only interested in what i can or cant get out of it as an observer
Effort is not really the point (though lack of effort is universally indicative of a hack). Point is the "avant-garde" hasn't produced anything novel for decades. They're only regurgitating the same old BORING postmodernist concepts that started going stale by the time my grandpa was born. I don't care about your trash heap no matter how much you elaborate on how it represents yadda yadda. Heard it all before, cunt. Your transparent intellectual wankery is not new or interesting and your trash heap is not new or interesting. You're lucky the fine art wankers have their heads deep up their assholes or it wouldn't be a $1000000 trash heap either.
>i cant comment on 21st century art because i know fuckall about it. ill provisionally agree that if anyone is making dada in the same way duchamp and hoch were in the 10s presently itd look fucking stupid.
And I'll provisionally say this shit make up the majority of current institutional fine art.

just because boomers are retarded doesn't mean they don't happen to be right for the wrong reasons

hey, but what about putting a blowup doll or a dildo in a museum, i'm sure that has never been tried before

Given the naive kiddie influx lately I can't tell whether you're ironic or not, but this is so basic a concept I can guarantee it has been done.

You clearly are not a musician, nor do you have the slightest understanding of Bach. Your reductive criticism regarding chord progressions makes you sound retarded. Works such as the art of the fugue are some of the most technically perfect compositions in the history of music. He essentially wrote a treatise on the fugue with only musical notes.
You’re just another dumb fuck who feels compelled to have a strong opinion against accepted truths for no good reason.

>I don't see another explanation for the abscence of individuals like Bach, Bernini or Shakespeare in our time
to add to this, i don't see any great people period anymore
no more great people in motorsport, urban planning, architecture

where did all the great people go?

So has this whole movement basically stemmed from a few guys trolling formalists and traditionalists with urinals and tomato cans and disaffected retards with no discipline to cultivate their tastes and study art actually taking the bait from then on? Not saying there can't be more to it, just speaking to muh conceptual (post)modern ready-mades and their various tangents.

Basically. Another key aspect is pretentious assholes with capital and in institutions who keep this shit snowballing.

there are plenty of cultures and periods of time that didn't produce anything of worth, we may be on one of those, modern """art""" doesn't just play its meaningless games but it also creates a context that makes it impossible for people with actual talent to get any support from society to develop their art

unless you buy into the progress meme and think that things at t+1 are always better than at t

formalism was already part of the same game

>We can, except the difference is that instead of using marble, artists are using ZBrush or Maya
which in my opinion is a hundred times less impressive because a guy or girl sitting at their computer clicking their mouse isn't as intensive as chiselling away for 5 years on a giant piece of stone, not being able to ctrl + z any mistake you make

Sure, I guess my description is more fitting for the consumers of this market and the cynicism that you speak of describes its gatekeepers to a certain extent. Not that there isn't some overlap for the custodians.
How so?

The is the 'I don't know anything about art' old man answer. Whacking away at a piece of stone is not the hard or impressive part. The impressive part is the knowledge of anatomy and form which takes a lifetime to develop, and that's something that can't be cheated no matter what tools you use.
Also, hate to burst your idealistic idea of how art is made, but all the old masters had a bunch assistants that would do the tedious stuff, like blocking out the form in the case marble sculpting.

but that's just as bad as being wrong

>Bernini made classical greek statues with glitter
Confirmed for knowing nothing about art history.

Amuse me, nigger, and try to avoid Odd Nerdrum or anything that appears on artrenewal while you're at it.

Seems to me more the curse of aesthetic incompetence than the sin of historical ignorance.

reddit

the thing about the art world is that it's a fundamentally anti-popular market. for a novel or album or movie to be popular means that literally millions of people had to decide to plunk down cold hard cash for it at once, whereas art has to impress a just a handful of collectors. when you talk about blue chip contemporary art, you're talking about a market of maybe 100 people, tops. unless you're extraordinarily wealthy and a collector, your opinion of what gladstone gallery is showing this week matters just about as much as your opinion of YSL's spring collection if you earn $60k a year, which is to say, "fuck all"

Read an art history textbook, take a class at a community college, online etc. contemporary art is largely non-figurative, non-allegorical, non-representational, but the claim is “non representation is freedom from standards or controlling factors”. Without the expectation of representation, prices can convay meaning in different ways. Think of a free verse poem, free jazz etc.

Attached: 44399341-7F7A-4DB1-A554-B0FE5857B36F.gif (360x360, 5K)

bad news, but the actual marble statue is carved by a workshop of fabricators. the "artist" only does a design in clay and it's copied by superitalianname & sons. ditto bronze

but read critically, don't get memed by insiders trying to sell you their bullshit

readymades proper are approximately half a century earlier than "postmodernism". if you're going to use five dollar words at least use them right

The reason people care about about it is because the very reactions in this thread. Fucking reactionaries going full retard, if they hate it it must be good!

>if people get angry at what you do then it's art

how was formalism worth anything? i can give you that the theory and literature around it may have been more compelling than conceptualism, but the paintings themselves are mostly just pleasing pastel colors garbage with no standards

even conceptualists use at times pleasing shapes and colors, or shiny dildos, but that doesn't mean it's not garbage

This book is pretty good.From my perspective art of the past was more in conversation with the outside world while now art is talking and commenting to itself,expounding on subjects created within it's own sphere.

Attached: shock.jpg (960x1440, 299K)

how is anything in art new and not just the repetition of the same "no standards" boring meme for 100 years? it's just empty commodified tokens of prestige

it's the witness and testimony to art. dali wanted to slaughter a cow in front of a crowd of people as a work of art

this was true 50/60 years ago. 'modern art' applies to a totally different kind of art.

this garbage was already old 50-60 years ago, there were already toilets in museums over 100 years ago

After years of self learning Art i came to the conclusion art is three things.

Affect
precept
Style

To create a work of art is to create both an expression and an experience. And this doesnt always have to do with painting.

If i decided i wanted to be a painter who made horror. What is a more scary experience. Me making a painting of a monster.
Or getting a blank canavas, writing a phone number on it. Have the museum attendees call the number, and when they listen they can hear a pre recorded message of a woman screaming and asking for help then being murdered

Its about creating a memorable experience lad. Its about making them never forget you.

Attached: gondola tarot.jpg (700x1217, 196K)

just slap random people if you want them to remember you

but picasso didn't die until the 70s

so? he was 91 and had been producing garbage for a long time when he died

the hell he had. he made those beautiful etchings.

that would give you an initial reaction
a matisse painting you can look at for hours.

A work of art should do two things to the viewer.

Make them ask

what does it mean?

And

what does it do?

And well, what if you tossed out symbolic order and kept just what does it do.

Anyways, modern art is like that. Its not about painting landscape painting and mechanically reproducing reality anymore. Its about the process, or the concept, or the abstract, or the interaction, etc

>beautiful
i guess he know something about composition, but calling them beautiful is stretching it a bit too far

Underrated

modern art is not like that, nobody would look at it if it was outside of a museum, the """art""" if there's any is all in the context and the literature written around the pieces, not in the pieces themselves

previous art would have caught your attention regardless of where it was located, even art from different cultures does that, it just speaks by itself which modern art doesn't do

Or what if i told people that i was having an art opening and then when they arrived they saw that the door was locked and the museum was closed, and i was hiding in the bushes filming them and laughing.

i think it's not real art unless you throw feces or dildos at them, maybe add some naked girls screeching and menstrual blood somewhere

It's not as much unbridled hate as finding the whole "make up your own meaning" and "read the meaning in the pamphlet" bullshit old, uninspired and grating. Along with the haughty pseuds that follow, competing in intellectual wankery olympics.

>muh but older art was better

Lmao, yeah, so hard.

You want to know the ingredints?

Theme, symbol, motif, color scheme.
Being indirect, making them search for meaning.

Space: framing, angels, point of view, placement, far away, above, below, etc, etc

time: morning, noon, night. Before, after, during.

Messing about with information.

The viewer as god, they can see things the people in the painting cant. suspense

Or how about only the beings in the painting can see things, mystery.

OR HOW ABOUT ITS COMING RIGHT AT YOU. horror

Want to subvert expectations? Give new information about an old thing. Yup, thats spiderman jerking off to gay porn.

it also makes real art institutions impossible once society gets too memed on this nu-art garbage

i think now with the internet and the disintegration of people into their own pockets actual art may make a return, but it will take time for movements to start and for people with actual talent to get decent formation

it's not that it was better, it's that it was art, which nu-art isn't. You can ridicule literally anything by using meme-language

he's studying her, trying to read her thoughts, trying to decide whether she loves him because he's a monster. women are odd enough for that, you know. it's hard to say whether he wants to
wake her or kill her.
it's beautiful

Attached: cri_000000158285.jpg (2000x1539, 864K)

art has never been about reproducing reality (maybe some paintings have, but not art). nature and art, being two different things, cannot be the same thing. through art we express our conception of what nature is not. velasquez left us his idea of the people of his epoch. undoubtedly they were different from what he painted them, but we cannot conceive a philip iv in any other way than the one velasquez painted

what you described has the same effect as a bad painting, it doesn't go beyond what it shows you at first glance.

How about you amuse yourself you retard. It's not my fault you think contemporary art that's technically capable ends at ARC or meme shit like Nerdrum (exactly the type dilettantism I was talking about).

yes, i never bought that explanation of
>painting technique just got too good and we have photographs now, that's why we have to put literal garbage in museums
realism was always just one of the aspects of art and not the principal one

read the history of art. The concept of what art"is" has changed vastly over time. The greeks thought the point of making paintings was to be as realistic as possible with nothing to do with emotion. They thought poetry was the only worthy are of emotion

and mainstream institution trust is breaking down so there's no reason everybody should have the same conception of art anymore

i think the rules greeks, egyptians, etc had about painting were with regards to beauty. after all the painters were dependent on poets for their inspiration. the hellenistic period certainly didn't have focus on realism.

if a work of art cannot live always in the present it must not be considered at all

well hasn't that been the case for a long time

I think the modernist view has been the unique view of high art for the last 100 years. There may have been other conceptions of pop art, but not of high art, at least not conceptions that survived for long or went anywhere.

They exists for validation, same as 3x3 threads on Yea Forums.

Postmodernist, cunt

modernist, there has been literal garbage in museums for over 100 years, literal toilet in museum was 102 years ago

there are some non-garbage modernist movements like impressionism, but expressionism was already a drop with standards that was irrevocably going to end with putting dildos in museums

the unique view of the last century began with van gogh. all artists since are autodidacts. primitive artists if you like

if it's unique why does art from the last 100 years look all like the same random gimmicks?

Art peaked with abstract expressionism. There was nowhere to go after that.

>peaked
more like nosedived, but yeah expressionism created a black hole that sucked everything and made real art impossible

not picasso, braque, matisse

Modern art is Capital. It is no different than the chain letter of stocks or any other financial instrument.

The "art" is in the hustle.

Attached: Mackay_1841_edition_front_page.png (440x670, 23K)

how is cubism not a gimmick and a drop of standards? they kept some compositional techniques from previous movements that made their art still sort of recognizable as art, but at that point it was just already a race to the bottom

cubism is no different from any other school of painting. the same principles and the same elements are common to all. the fact that for a long time cubism has not been understood and that even today there are people who cannot see anything in it, means nothing. i do not read italian, and an italian book is a blank to me. this does not mean that the italian language does not exist, and why should i blame anyone but myself if i cannot understand what i know nothing about?

What pol tards dont grasp about artists and modern art. To be an artist is to be in mortal kombat with capital.

One of the many reasons it evolved beyond paintings.
The only way to escape the grasps of capital are to become a criminal (grafftti) or create something impermanent. (hijacking a bus and taking your best friend hostage while wearing a mask, then after he pisses himself reveal that its you and all the other people on the bus were actors)

you don't need a book to understand art even from other cultures, you may need a book to understand the full depth of it, but even in a first context-less impression art should speak by itself

Except expressionism's explicit goal to communicate raw, sincere emotion. Postmodernism is in many ways the antithesis to expressionism. When trying to communicate anything at all, postmodernism is about making "statements" and roundabout "representations" of the concept of emotion. Any obvious emotional investment is frowned upon, because it robs the viewer of the opportunity to construct a long-winded pretentious interpretation.

imagine being this memed by the establishment and thinking you are a rebel, the elites love graffiti

expressionism is the same kind of garbage with a slightly different justification

cant buy it unless you are dumb enouge to rip up a wall, will be painted over

>No! You're wrong!
Hot argument.

cubism is the language in that analogy.
since i not a scientist, i should not venture to call any scientific treatise obscure, know what i mean.

you can sell "graffiti tours", which most touristic cities do, also photos of graffiti

justify how it is not garbage

I just did, still waiting for you to respond to any of the points I made.

lol this

>Except expressionism's explicit goal to communicate raw, sincere emotion
it clearly fails to do that, the art doesn't speak for itself without lengthy explanations and context and social pressure

fanriot.tumblr.com/post/138800691288/

:^)

Attached: 51FF30CE-F011-482A-B017-BBF5E0A847C7.png (400x268, 127K)

That is postmodernism, dumbfuck. Take The Scream by Munch, it is quite explicit in what it tries to communicate. Of course you can go on a pretentious tirade trying to find something "hidden", but you can do the same with realist art as well.

>Am I an emotionally stunted subhuman incapable of finding art that speaks to me that isn't pure realism?
>No, I am not broken - the art world is wrong!
go see a therapist

Attached: 1547360070783.jpg (767x770, 133K)

You can tell insane lies to the taxman about the value of "" "" "art" "" ""
>money laundering

based and capitalpilled

Is there any contemporary art you guys actually like?

Attached: oliv029.jpg (639x700, 153K)

the desire to put on a veneer of refinement and culture. it's for parvenu suckers and strivers.

Martin Parr is a boss

Attached: martinparr_4.jpg (900x1132, 401K)

Attached: no.jpg (1280x720, 65K)

Shit like pic related is the only kind of postmodern art I can tolerate. It's gimmicky, but you get this Wonderland/funfair feel that's kinda cool. That's all there is to it though, in the end it's just random impersonal shit that won't leave much of an impression.

Kader Attia

Attached: kader_attia_flying_rats.jpg (600x398, 87K)

It's all money laundering. You buy art at a given price and have someone appraise it at 20x the price a few years later then donate it to a museum and write off the difference.

i like amalia ulman

Attached: Dignity_Amalia_Ulman_email-e1500561088243.png (525x700, 514K)

The reason people get angry about the state of contemporary art is because it is insulting. The message it always conveys above all else
>this isn't for you
>only elites will understand
>We didn't consider commoners when we made this
>we laugh at you for expecting talent or skill
It's class warfare. It's an inversion of nature.

Attached: Crisostomo.jpg (736x995, 130K)

Poor phrasing, but meant those as separate categories, hence the parentheses.
I didn't say that it necessarily was. Made no value judgements with regards to it. It was just an observation regarding how some decided to troll/subvert it and how contemporary hipsters actually took the bait, ironically managing to formalise their subversive art, not just by way of practice, but commerce and scope as well.

isn't porn pop art though?

course not

This is pulp

I disagree, somewhat. I think that modern art is actively hostile to its audience, regardless of caste; hostile to meaning and interpretation, it is an expression of contempt and rage, or a message of total alienation.

Contemporany art reproduces the dominant ideology, but classical art repeoduces the very fundaments that make possible contemporany art

I don't think it's art at all but I'm not complaining.

Attached: Ulman.jpg (900x532, 251K)

looks like some sort of pretentious insta-thotism

well that was part of a big fake story she did on instagram

dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/39375/1/amalia-ulman-2014-instagram-hoax-predicted-the-way-we-use-social-media

I don't get this meme. Do people honestly, legitimately, truthfully believe that because money laundering is possible in art, all art is money laundering? It's like a 2-year-old's logical fallacy.

>No, I'm not saying I don't enjoy these three people but to elevate them to godlike geniouses that will never come again-status is fucking plebeian as shit.
But that's exactly what Shakespeare, Bach, and Bernini were - irreplaceable, ultra-human geniuses who will never come again, not in the same way.

>"predicted"
As if camwhores weren't a thing in 2014

someone did this on Youtube in like 2005, though

>Artist Amalia Ulman’s captivating performance of an aspiring it-girl’s quest for perfection foreshadowed our current behaviours
imagine unironically writing this

because it's just empty prestige tokens nobody would buy without the theater around them or would give them a second look if they found them on the street

yeah i don't really agree with the article but i do like that she did it

Why? She didn't even do anything fun with it. She camwhored for a while and then she didn't. Did the usual preachy schtick about female gender roles and social media inauthenticity and yadda yadda

Absolutely boring.

the problem of charlatanism leaves me indifferent. i just like when artists lie basically, i think her hearts in the right place. it's like when orson welles did war of the worlds.

actually the hoax about orson welles' war of the worlds is that people believed it, that didn't happen but newspapers just printed out it happened

firstly, it doesn't really matter it just makes a good story. secondly, you can't really belittle the excitement caused, we know the radio stations got flooded with calls, welles (like ulman) had to make a public apology, mr hitler actually spoke of it in the great munich speech, and it was the whole reason he was invited as it were to hollywood.
someone did a similar broadcast years later in brazil and they were arrested.

Her heart is obviously in getting attention from the galleries and she probably enjoyed the social media whoring as well. It is rotten to the core.

lets go the other way around and instead of being banal and demeaning, lets be incredibly ostentatious and authoritarian. I propose a 10 meter tall golden statue that uses motion sensing technology to force viewers to go through a 10 minute long ritual composed of gestures and "sacred" objects, and if they fail they are shot at with microwave guns.

why are you like this?

Yeah this one

I really like that painting; thanks for sharing

Because I'm not dumb enough to buy into the real deception of this story.

ah i see. you're insecure about your intelligence?

>Pierre Bourdieu

Isn't he some cuck-lord faggot post-modernist from the Frankfurt school of thought? If so, I couldn't care less about what he has to say.

well i wonder if you heard (you didn’t) orson welles once say that magic begins and ends with the figure of the magician who asks the audience, for a moment, to believe that the lady is floating in the air. In other words, be eight years old for a moment.

No, because I recognize there's nothing intellectual going on in this thing whatsofuckingever. Just an untalented trust fund cunt going on a social media whore trip and then spouting some basic shit pretending she made a statement. It's just the same stale old postmodern wankery we've been seeing for decades now.

But of course you'll gobble this faggotry up, as the pseud you are.

>why not pander to the delusions of the mentally retarded
>must be because you aren't secure in your intelligence

It's no less impressive if many man does it or if one man does it, considering the end result is still something unbelievably human carved out from stone.

no but you do realise people don't usually go on like this?
something must be wrong

Magic tricks are compelling because the illusions are improbable. There's nothing improbable about a bitch posting cleavage on instagram.

feel like you're proving my point

Has anyone written a book about vaporwave/internet aesthetics? Is it art?

Attached: 1550014879074.jpg (500x700, 102K)

Yes, you.

how is doing something common but ironically smart? why doesn't she marry and have kids as "performance art" instead? that would be certainly more subversive in the current times, specially if she didn't divorce and kept the charade running

you have no point except that people should drop all standards for some reason

Some of the stuff i used to think was pretty low effort, I now think takes some meaningful amount of work. For example i saw a pretty mediocre installation based on maybe 40 old satellites. A few years ago i would have said it was retarded, but now i at least realize, it takes some amount of real effort to buy, store, decorate, transport and hang 40 satellites. And it is a legit gamble to spend time and money on shit like this, hoping it's gonna be successful as some random installation.

my point was the insecurity about your level of intelligence. never said anything about dropping standards. thought maybe we should. yeah why not. a horrid remnant of the reformation of ever i heard of one

i don't see how her art being garbage has anything to do with whether i'm smart or not? not even the original guy you spoke with

Attached: 1554905351284.png (478x523, 168K)

i didn't call it smart.

nor do i, you (and the other chap) brought that up

Stuff like that is more novelty shit more than anything. It's fun to see a buncha satellites welded together because you've never seen it before. Unless you have your head up your ass though it won't move you in any capacity, causing it to feel like wasted effort to most.
The gamble aspect is overstated, the people getting into postmodern art are the last to struggle financially, their time and effort is not precious. It doesn't even bother them too much if no one gives shit about their work because they can rest assured the reason is people are plebeians who simply will never get it.

thank you for this exchange, it reminded me why I still come here

I haven't seen this perspective posted yet, and its generally how I feel about all art. Art isn't actually the thing in the world 'out there' made by so and so. Art is a perspective; a special kind of looking. Ask someone to consider a thing art and the gaze transforms it. It becomes set aside in a special aesthetic context whereby the elements of the thing's composition become rendered palpable to the imagination. You can look at the mona lisa without doing this and for you the thing simply isn't art. You can look at a rock on the ground while attuned to its particular characteristics and come to the realization of art.
Having said that, this era likes to play with the idea of suggesting something as art that you'd never typically subject to such scrutiny. Of course this 'thing' is largely a social construction. They haven't quite figured out what it means and why certain things elicit this feeling and others not so much. Maybe it harkens back to when, perhaps, as a child, you might have noticed something beautiful that you couldn't explain. Over time that ability to see the beautiful gets constrained by social convention and we loose that innocence. Perhaps what this era tries to achieve is to elicit that 'artistic look' more freely - hence all the unconventional pieces we see today. Its just the beginnings of a theory, but perhaps it can outline for you some general thoughts concerning the look you're arting at.

tl;dr
art demands/compells you to feel/consider
today the art world is preoccupied with forcing you to feel/consider the uninteresting

If you want a concise pseud explaination this book is fine. You can choose for yourself when art fully went down the toilet.

Attached: Isms.jpg (303x450, 67K)

Aliza Shvarts is pretty great.

Decent post. Unfortunately you're too optimistic and it's literally just money laundering.

i fucking hate that modern artists are a bunch of worthless attention-seeking lazy type of people who care more about money and prestige rather than the craft itself
this pic puts the modern artist as worthless weazel who will never comprehend what is excellency

Attached: 1517700009350.jpg (200x148, 14K)

>This is a fantastic piece of art
>I'm going to post the smallest picture of it imaginable

>Or getting a blank canavas, writing a phone number on it. Have the museum attendees call the number, and when they listen they can hear a pre recorded message of a woman screaming and asking for help then being murdered

gimmicky garbage, one night affair if you will, it doesn´t stand the test of time

happy now, bitch?

Attached: 1524525133950.jpg (1600x1920, 2.8M)

not that guy but come on now. accidentally saving a thumbnail is a classic newfag mistake and if we don't bully you you'll never learn

>and if we don't bully you you'll never learn

Attached: 1548012554130.png (520x512, 51K)

Attached: md19938098832.jpg (300x435, 16K)

>retarded grandpa angry he got called out
Come on gramps go on your yahoo search engine and look up 'difference between thumbnail and full image'

>Come on gramps

i have 21 but whatever, keep outing yourself as a fool

Attached: 1522547783984.jpg (300x223, 15K)

>i have 21
oof

This isn't productive, let's come to the agreement that you're both retarded.

Attached: Saint Paul.jpg (599x445, 173K)

>I have 21
Hey Grandpa Spic why don't you search 'ESL classes near me' on your Askjeeves toolbar

>he forgot to say please no bully

youtu.be/thbMaR6nyxY

i´m sephardic jew with italian and basque descent,
but it´s true my english isn´t proficient as it should be, what are you going to do about it, tough guy?

Attached: (b)eter 1.jpg (338x338, 18K)

>i have 21
*RECORD SCRATCHES*
uhh did he just say what i think he did

Attached: 1498759586465.jpg (437x396, 26K)

you’re a larper, dude. you’re just too dumb to realize it. literally no one in this thread shows a serious sign of engagement with modern art, and it’s frank embarassing but all too predictable from Yea Forums. none of you dumbfucks show even the slightest acquaintance with JEFF fucking KOONZ, for starters. You want to understand the trajectory of art post-Warhol? Start with him.

and yes im referring to the college football coach, Jeff Koons.

>trying to have as many abortions as possible as a university art project

I don't need to do anything, just found out you're a jew. Pretty clear who won this one.

me

You do realize that in a thread with this many unique posters, there is absolutely nothing to stop you from abandoning the identity you started out with and "disappearing"? No one would be able to identify you if you stopped replying. Hounds don't try to pursue prey that vanishes for very long. What started as a mild embarrassment has now turned into you telling us MORE about yourself, as if you had an "identity" or a "reputation" to save when we're all anonymous. You may not understand this yet - you're clearly new here - but you're just digging your own grave.

Remember: there are only two people on Yea Forums. You and one insane(ly dedicated) other guy.

>Implying performance is not art

What are plays, ballet, musicians, and comedy routines for 500, Alex?

lol a literal WHO?

Bernini was probably an asshole

uh, we've got plenty.

that anish IS PRETTY FUCKING REAL

lol art started in 1919 . . .the meme has become real . . .

hi op

whats popular contemporary art? Richard Serra is popular contemporary art. Frank Gehry is popular contemporary art. Jeff Koons is popular contemporary art. theres all tripes of popular contemporary art....

who are 'these people'

start over and list your bad art. its unlikely any single book is gonna do much for you.

nonetheless, for a potentially good time, call Lawrence Weschler - ask for Seeing Is Forgetting the Name of the Thing One Sees.
ps get the old version if you can. the new one has nothing to add.

Attached: 75c22d26ab12df2e1a91e8dec6a90665--rachel-whiteread-british.jpg (200x252, 13K)

>literally no one in this thread shows a serious sign of engagement with modern art
because it's garbage

pop art at best, not high art

im the guy who wrote that post, i have awoken 10 hours later from my nap to say
Time isnt real bitch

if time weren't real why didn't you reply before?

im highly engaged with modern art.
what would you like to know?

when did you get brainwashed?

im not.
I like Maderno, Rainaldi, Palladio more than you do. I like Michelangelo more than you do. Im probably more interested in Giotto than you are. Same as Twombly same as a Serra to me.

Attached: CY.12_001.jpg (605x425, 63K)

Let me guess, you think the only kind of high art is gas station bathroom wall poop writing?

how is this pic not garbage?

first by how much you dislike it. part of art is elevating things people disregard, after all.
its very relaxed, bout the ease of the hand indulging in its marks, the refusal of technique - and yet the availability of access to art/cultural history through a certain minimum: the perspective triangle, the windowwhich could just as easily be a Tintoretto, the bird like squiggles which could just as easily be a Raphael. It very enjoyable.

>first by how much you dislike it
doesn't take much to make me dislike things desu
>part of art is elevating things people disregard
sounds like very convenient cope
>its very relaxed, bout the ease of the hand indulging in its marks, the refusal of technique - and yet the availability of access to art/cultural history through a certain minimum: the perspective triangle, the windowwhich could just as easily be a Tintoretto, the bird like squiggles which could just as easily be a Raphael. It very enjoyable.
ok, now i know you are just trolling, you got me

Is that your momma's dildo?

not copin
not trollin

spend some time looking at paintings and come back when youre ready

Attached: malevich-16.jpg (800x542, 60K)

i agree you can come up with ingenious lines by looking at literally anything, the content of your fevered dreams doesn't mean you are not staring at literal garbage

>expressionism, of all things, is directly responsible for conceptualism
imagine having not even a high schoolers graps on the history of art and still feeling compelled to have strong opinions on it

Attached: Emil-Nolde-Weite-Marschlandschaft-mi_6bf452832f.jpg (2560x1851, 804K)

yeah, garbage is ok sometimes.
better than bad art.

Attached: garbage.jpg (692x1050, 131K)

a lot of Seurat's study's are better than the final paintings.

of course pic isn't a suerat

Attached: Dela.1971.309R - Sketches of Tigers and Men in 16th Century Costume....jpg (3000x2343, 2.63M)

what a fucking mess, monet.

Attached: monet-lilies.jpg (800x609, 138K)

geez, georges . . . what a mess

Attached: seurat_paysage_homme_assis_(etude_pour_un_dimanche_dete_a_lile_d5369362h.jpg (340x217, 21K)

Les beaux arts are not attheir peak for sure. I have just come to term with it. Some periods of time simply see much lower artistic achievements and we're in one of them.
It is also misleading to dismiss art in broad stroke. You can have incredible things happening in various decorative arts. Don't forget film or even bloody vidya (inb4 rise up). Just don't expect too much from sculpture shown in fancy arts gallerie. The situation is confusing because it is the art forms that were classically considered the highest that are a relative disappointment, it doesn't mean that there is no esthetic achievement in recent times.

the audience is not at its peak.
the art is fine.

Attached: KtNAsxFULgf8_740x740.jpg (740x544, 41K)

Attached: skinner.jpg (618x412, 47K)

Bump

bump limit reached, see you again in the next one

>I like Maderno, Rainaldi, Palladio more than you do. I like Michelangelo more than you do
feel like someone like this can't really know anything about art at all

Tom Wolfe--The Painted Word.
Surprised it has not been mentioned yet.

nice fucking 'feeling' you have.

stick a baldacchino up your ass.

tom wolfe is shit

are people who like contemporary art just retarded or evil?

They have an eye for it. You’re the retarded one

And some people have an eye for scat porn. Honestly a tier above you self-important cunts.

>They have an eye for it
doubt that, nobody likes that garbage without getting memed hard first

Attached: 3swVx8xdw9uFcW3Ih_NKaw.jpg (500x333, 50K)

triggered plebs

Attached: IMG-20180503-WA0001.jpg (900x1600, 247K)