Modern art

eh, I didn't do anything too bad anyways, there has never been a good thread about this topic.

>avant-garde bloggers
rofl

Beyond the Brillo Box by Arthur Danto

>that could make me understand modern art
you're not meant to understand it because it has no real meaning

OP unironically The Art Assignment channel on YouTube is exactly what you’re looking for. Start with their video about “untitled(Two Lovers)” bc it’s short and heartbreaking. It convinced me modern art was worth paying attention to. Don’t pay attention to retards who ridicule contemporary art. They probably couldn’t name five still working still living artists with a gun to their heads.

Read Rosalind Krauss

Actually factually unironically The Culture of Critique

Read The story of art by Ernst Gombrich. Its about the history of art from the very beginnings, but also includes chapters on modern art. Its an easy read.

Attached: sjad1TX.jpg (937x1170, 84K)

once you come to accept that all art is just about the emotion it invokes, then you will understand.

John Gardner - on moral fiction
>Consider what Freud, Sartre, and Wittgenstein would have done to our model moral artist, Dante.
Tom Wolfe - the painted word
>named three prominent art critics whom he dubbed the kings of "Cultureburg": Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg and Leo Steinberg
Dali - the cuckolds of antiquated modern art
Scruton's books

if it has to be a single book, read culture of critique

"obituaries":
>dont kill the messenger, i'm just describing the facts of a new era
Georg Steiner - the death of tragedy
Roland Barthes - the death of the author (essay)
Susan Sontag - notes on camp (essay)
Adorno's crocodile tears also belong to this category, dont ever post "were they actually on our side? frankfurt_school.jpg" threads to me or my son again

interesting personalities that are probably connected to cold war astroturfing: Miles Copeland III and Pannonica de Konigswarter

Attached: john gardner.jpg (261x388, 35K)

do they do the shizoformatting on purpose?

Thank you all

what

this. Look up 'Abilene paradox'

Christ, It's not even worth arguing with you people. You're an ignorant philistine. You're ignorant of what modern, post-modern and contemporary (and beyond) art is about what what it's aims and practices are. Actually get a (practice based) arts education before you spout shit like Scruton and Wolfe. Fine art has developed into some extraordinary and exciting places over the last few decades. It's a real shame that there are people so ideologically possessed that they can't appreciate what contemporary art has to offer.

Could you pin point more resources? I don't really know how to get an arts education rn

Post five great works.

You need to understand the term "modern". The more you know what modern physics, modern sports, modern music, modern film, modern philosophy, modern architecture etc. share in common, the more you'll know why modern art is the way it is. This is the first step. The second step is understanding why this happens from an anthropological perspective. The third step is understanding anthropology from a theological standpoint. The fourth step is understanding theology from your being-in-the-world. The fifth step is understanding from intellectual intuition stimulated and carried by Spirit. The sixth and final step is understanding by Revelation, Spirit itself.

It's fucking paint splattered haphazardly on a canvas lmao calm the fuck down

There's not a lot to understand. Any artist who sympathises with the movement will just tell you that form comes before meaning. The few people who actually identify themselves as Pollock or Rothko fans admit they like them exactly because they don't have any meaning behind it. It could be just like classic architecture, only they don't really care about beauty, only about shock.

The thing is, you either get it or you don't. You can read books to understand about literature, cinema, even music, but not art.

Attached: art0-a.jpg (1693x2137, 1.26M)

lmao

I don't know about formal art education but I do these shitty abstract drawing things heavily inspired by Jung

Attached: artsillhouettes.jpg (826x1217, 122K)

>splattered haphazardly on a canvas

exactly what modern physics would say about our universe's place in the multiverse (itself a modern idea). coincidence?

I use art as a matter of communicating with my unconscious mind, like a waking dream, and also processing and expressing feelings

Attached: artgirl.jpg (1700x2200, 295K)

I don't really get that, but I can accept that art has a wide range of interpretations and potentialities. But I have a hard time clicking art without meaning because it's antithetical to how I view and use art in my personal life

Attached: IMG_20190502_223658_078.jpg (1700x1700, 772K)

not outright dismissing it certainly gives you a head start :)
maybe one day you will come across a piece of art that - while seemingly meaningless - has a certain type of impact on you, an impact that makes you feel something - explore that feeling. this is not really a thing where dry exercises are useful.

It's ok user, express yourself.

you have some talent, user, keep on exploring this

Yes, I think the same. The current state of art is kind of an inversion of values: the low is now academically accepted, while the high is snubbed. What is considered respected among the art establishment nowadays is the equivalent of low brow entertainment. Which isn't far from the truth, since so many artists nowadays are more entrepreneurs than artists (see Murakami, Koons, and other hacks).

There are levels to art and how it shapes social hierarchies if Bourdieu is to be believed. In OP's case, his understanding might hover somewhere in the 18th or 19th century. Anyone of us lacks SOME understanding and appreciation so some art will always seem incomprehensible. Since the impressionists art developed separately from other fields of production and if you don't actively engage, a lot of it will seem.. dead

Shock of the new by Robert Hughes
Power of art by Simon Schama (a couple of the chapters are modern)
Why your five year old could not have done that by Susie Hodge
What are you looking at by Gumpertz
Art since 1989 by Kelly Grovier
Art of looking by Esplund
The cremaster cycle by Matthew Barney
Every book by Arthur Danto as mentioned before.

i think outsider art is more interesting

much better list

Thank you

I think it might be intentional or at least a natural consequence of shallow materialistic hedonistic nihilistic society. Like, you don't necessarily want people being reflective and focusing on deeper meanings in >current year

Would you like to recommend anything in particular? An artist or a work

Why aren't you guys taking photographs of someone else's photographs, putting your name on it, and selling it for millions?

Attached: bio_prince_richard.jpg (171x263, 9K)

i could but im not going to, we are different persons and something tends to work better in a memorable context, which is not sitting in front of a pc in a dimly lit room
if you really do care about this, start hitting up museums displaying modern arts, try to really get a feeling for what you like and maybe you will find greatness one day. all i can do is wish you good luck.

I mean it really just comes down to that if something isn't your fucking specialty and discipline and you haven't put a good 15 years in intensive work and study into it then if you try to think you can just bluff and act like you know anything you'll come across as a pathetic tryhard fool to me. You'd be throwing a lot of buzzwords around emptily and saying every other thing just totally wrong and clearly not having any insight or experience to back it up. That's just how it is when people have actually put in the time. You don't go to a fucking physicist and presume you can just 'fake it' and discuss the subject on his level? It's like people smoke a blunt and look at the pretty colors of a painting and think it all must be frivolous and easy and you can just say whatever. And someone doing that at best sounds like a guy saying he's a huge music fan and then name-dropping Nirvana and Elvis, and saying they're great metal acts.

i mean, youre not wrong but still your analogies suck and you worded it like a cunt

Attached: 1536357220325.png (540x693, 381K)

first start by learning that "modern art" and "contemporary art" refer to two different things

> Are there any books that could make me understand modern art?

The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion.

Modern art is another tool to make everything in the world ugly. The goal is to push degeneracy on you and get you to kill yourself.

...

To explain modern art we first have to look at what art is, and how it relates to the culture that creates it. Art is the purest expression of the soul; a complex form-language of nonreciprocal communication between the artist and the viewer. High cultural art took form in grand artistic epochal movements that evolved from one style to the next (what we call common practice), each epoch a pure expression of the Western soul, the yearning for infinity. There are less grand epochs for painting and sculpture, which take a backseat to music in Western culture, than with classical music. Indeed we possess no concept of sculpture epochs at all in Western art history, for sculpture is a form-language romantically appropriated from antiquity and meaningless for the Western soul outside of aesthetics. In classical music, something constantly moving and changing and filling the empty space all around us, the Western soul expresses itself to the fullest. The sculpture, something stationary and present and able to be inspected from all sides, inherently has no meaning for us. The painting, which is meant to be seen from one point of view only and acts as a window into the infinite, takes second place to classical music in Western form-languages.

Western high art eventually concluded, its ambitions of artistic infinity finally actualized, sometime in the late 19th century. Since then all art has been culturally meaningless and finds meaning only through the individual. Today, anything can be art as long as someone believes it is art. Art since about 1900 has slowly been detaching itself from the cultural epochs of painting and classical music that came before it. It's no coincidence that American music, and by extension Western music as a whole, began to be heavily influenced by African American tribal music at around the same time as the conclusion of the final epoch of common practice classical music. Today art is made in "styles", not epochs, made only to excite the bored urban masses rather than to inspire a spiritually and culturally youthful society. Art will continue to become more and more depraved and ridiculous in an effort to entertain, to create success via controversy, not to impress upon a healthy culture the meaning of its soul as it once was. This is your "modern art", your superhero movies, your hiphop and rap, your glass roofed Notre Dame.

Attached: 801754.jpg (263x400, 40K)

Crime and Punishment.

Can some one explain Jackson Pollock to me?

The Conspiracy of Art by Baudrillard

>The illusion of desire has been lost on the ambient pornography and contemporary art has lost the desire of illusion. In porn, nothing is left to desire. After the orgies and the liberation of all desires, we have moved into the transsexual, the transparency of sex, with signs and images erasing all its secrets and ambiguity. Transsexual, in the sense that it now has nothing to do with the illusion of desire, only with the hyperreality of the image. The same is true for art, which has also lost the desire for illusion, and instead raises everything to aesthetic banality, becoming transaesthetic. For art, the orgy of modernity consisted in the heady deconstruction of the object and of representation. During that period, the aesthetic illusion remained very powerful, just as the illusion of desire was for sex. The energy of sexual difference, which moved through all the figures of desire, corresponded, in art, to the energy of dissociation from reality (cubism, abstraction, expressionism). Both, however, corresponded to the will to crack the secret fo desire and the secret of the object. Up until the disappearance of these two powerful configurations – the scene of desire, the scene of illusion – in favor of the same transsexual, transaesthetic obscenity, the obscenity of visibility, the relentless transparency of all things. In reality, there is no longer any pornography, since it is virtually everywhere. The essence of pornography permeates all visual and televisual techniques.

"modern" art is just antiart that only exists as a reaction to art. As Baudrillard says:

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

Baudrillard is good but I think this topic deserves the full icycalm treatment:

culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html

fuck man, you beat me to it. Great minds think, alike I guess, friend.

I can't look at a Pollock without thinking of Clement Greenberg's piece about how Monet's late work comes close to Pollock's in its emphasis on surface, the way it becomes more an object in the room than a means of conjuring something beyond it. Still one of the best things to read about art because it's the least literary in stance, and as such the least pretentious.