You often ask what is wrong with modern art. I will explain it to you

You often ask what is wrong with modern art. I will explain it to you.

Pre-war artist had both his unique vision and set of skills. Therefore he was able to produce unique artwork, which was an expression of his individuality. On the other hand, post-war art was primarily an illustration of intellectual experiments. It marginalised artistic skills and aesthetics. It made individual creative vision non-mandatory. For example 100 "action-painting" (Pollock) pictures don't differ from each other, because they are merely an annonymous record of mechanical, vital power, common for every living being. Dogs, cats, snakes, Pollock and every other animal or human being. It is not an expression of authors individual vision.

The other great difference is the fact that modern art is not only non-creative and non-productive. It is destructive. Unlike "traditional art", it doesnt base on creating something new. Instead, it's primal premise is to question tabu, destroy traditional values, simply shock, deconstruct. It is not productive, it is destructive. It is based on negation, spoiling, abuse, insult.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between common brutality or vandalism and modern art is not a result of mysterious artistic mind of modern artists, which can't be understood by regular, down-to-earth people. It is a result of changing the mening of "art" and "artist". They decided that not only canvas or stone can be material of an artist, but also society. By the new definition a person who influences societal reactions is an artist. Skills are not important. One minute scream of Yoko Ono is a work of art. Artists shit is a work of art.

Art always had an impact on society. Now think, what influence on people will have art based purely on destruction? You can see it now. It's called degeneracy. Nothing is sacred, everything not only is questioned but HAS TO be questioned. Breaking every possible traditional value is now something which has to be done.

Art = creation
Modern art = expression

O quam sancta, quam serena,
Quam benigma, quam amoena,
O castitatis lilium.

>based purely on destruction? [...] It's called degeneracy.
You are finding the truth. Keep digging

nu-pol will call stonehenge degenerate just because it's not a fucking greek statue

>mfw there was a canvas at le fart gallery painted entirely red
>mfw the accompanying paragraph of waffle almost won it the (((Archibald Prize)))

This is why I made this thread.
Rejecting art because "it's not a greek statue" is pleb tier. Of course people can sense thats something is wrong with modern art, but they can't really tell what it is.
Art is an act of creation, with its root in individual vision. To better translate that vision to a objective, material form, you have to possess certain skills. Both Statue of David and Cro Magnon paintings are art. Even a kids drawing of a flower is an art, although the kid doesn't have skills so it's not considered a good art.
But in the XX century there was a revoultion in understanding art. There was a guy named Joseph Beuys who had tremendous impact on academic life. He said things like
>Even the act of peeling a potato can be an artistic act if it is consciously done.
and
>Art is the only power to free humankind from all repression.
Of course you know what repression means for (((them)))

bump

Bump

F*** you gaijin. Yoko Ono is a genius.

i wouldnt call someone who influences society an artist necessarily, of course you can call yourself an artist and make that your art, but you can also do that with anything. there is just such a wide variety of modern art, i assume you are specifically talking about 'abstract' art. take rothko for instance, of course that would be an 'easy' thing to do, but he was the first. and he did them on huge canvases. it's easy to talk shit on rothko because you can only see small pictures through a screen. i have seen one in person and it was pretty impressive. there is no way to capture the color and imposing presence through a camera

bumping with more richard long.. saw him at an exhibition the rothschilds were having and decided i should check him out he's pretty cool. this was one of his pieces as a student where he paced a line into the ground

>everything not only is questioned but HAS TO be questioned
not everything

But that's wrong though.

He's right you know, Rothko's paintings isn't just one coat of paint on a canvas, it is innumerable layers, and tones, which all come through, with flat colors he is able to create depth just by layering them. It's actually quite impressive, though I am not fond of his works.
Beuys was also a crazy person be isn't wrong. Also there is tons of modern art that rejects what you stated Modern art to be, as well as some that is purely expressions of technical skill, A la photorealism. The problem is once you try and pigeon hole all twentieth century art as being the same your argument falls apart.

But I like Pollock. Am I degenerate?

Nah man just enjoy the art you enjoy, as food is fuel for the body art is fuel for the soul. Only degenerates would seek to destroy something created by human hands, the fact Pollock's still exist is a testament to People's ability to preserve and care for their culture.

why are brits dominating the modern sculpture world?

because it's satirical "art"

I'm not telling that all XX century art is shit, this is not the case. I'm just pointing the source of degeneracy in art, which is putting intellectual experiments and revolutionary thought before skills, vision, aesthetics and harmony.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

>ajokegonetoofar.jpg

...

...

...

...

...

Would like to shake your vector.

The rule of thumb is it's not art if a 4 year old could do it

...

...

Exactly.
And if you need to read a thesis on a wall to 'get it', then it's a con.
t. The Painted Word, by Tom Wolfe.

...

Modern Art is a CIA money laundering psyop.

There is some value in an abstraction, speaking from an art as language standpoint. Mood and intention can sometimes be derived from solid composition of shapes and values or colors.

Many of the old cartooning practices use graphic shapes to compose, then in the piece proper, refine the graphic into forms. A combination of the graphic and rendered yields beautiful results if done correctly.

Now, that being said, some modern art doesn't have a point really. It's just mental masturbation surrounding the artist's name or the artist themselves is trapped in their own preconceptions and refuses to make an attempt to communicate. Modern art is also used to launder money politically.

Fun stuff.

...

...

Modern Art is CIA's Propaganda

...

Seriously, this is one of the best threads today. It perfectly describes very on point everything wrong with 'modern' art.

...

...

...

...

what is this shit? Even I can draw better.

...

Shitty fucking anime.

>the average Japanese anime drawer out of tens of thousands of japanese anime drawers is superior to literally any "modern art".

explain this atheists

We have fallen so very, very far.

>pic related

some people just know that the fucked up people that are in the middle class and the rich won't publish art from the lower class so they draw the art fucked up on purpose

terrible

>literally 90% of my anime pictures are more aesthetically pleasing than literally any "modern art".

Perhaps with enough time and effort, a new school of art could be memed into existence? Traditional and Reconstructivist as opposed to (Post-)Modern and Deconstructivist?

art teacher here...the person that sketched those has no idea what they are doing. they just followed the basic instructions on how to draw but don't understand or apply them the right way.

everyone has a right to decide what they like even people that are trying to make the world a better place I mean really what would Jesus say

Love constructive criticism thanks but then again

wait, you take yourself seriously?

let me guess, you are 16 years old and started drawing like a month ago.

anyone with a spark of self awareness wouldn't dare post these online.

If you want actual critisiem you should go to It looks good enough for them not to boo you off the thread instead of giving feedback. If that makes sense

...

so I can take it then that your not a trump supporter

Curious to know how you came to this conclusion. It's an interesting analysis.

LSD?

What has supporting certain political stances got to do with not appreciating bad art?

I'm almost in the same boat as you.

This facial hair drag is sickening, and debases both male and female beauty simultaneously.

Art is subjective but there are some really awesome modern art. Just shortly - as from movies - Mullholand Dr and Inland Empire, games - Pathologic, Coma, paintings of Hiroshi Nagai and Hopper, music - Merzbow, Ulver, Whitehouse, Burzum, Boris, Aphex Twin, Autechre, Mouse on the Mars(and at all IDM formed in 90's, industrial and avant-garde metal at 70's). You're just commie with zero taste.

round about way of saying there is a disconnect between what you think is good and the reality of the matter one is not necessarily connected to the other

>Art is subjective
Sure, but the forms that good artists tap into are objective.

You have shit taste user