How did art become this?

The painting on the left is Rembrandt (1633). The one on the left is by CY Twombly (1962) and is priced at over $50 million. How did art go from that to this?

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/How-does-one-launder-money-using-art-work
theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/economists-urge-tighter-regulations-to-curb-money-laundering-in-art-market/article26217852/
soviethistory.msu.edu/1961-2/khrushchev-on-the-arts/khrushchev-on-the-arts-texts/khrushchev-on-modern-art/
youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
youtube.com/watch?v=oZOsR0TzbJ8
youtube.com/watch?v=Dw5kme5Q_Yo
sonyclassics.com/mykidcouldpaintthat/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

DAILY REMINDER: Modern art is a money-laundering scheme

Sources?

Your own eyes.

It just evolved. Impressionism took over and from there it's been a wild ride. We have cameras for pics like the one on the left

What said; it's self-evident. That said:
quora.com/How-does-one-launder-money-using-art-work
theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/economists-urge-tighter-regulations-to-curb-money-laundering-in-art-market/article26217852/

this

We have children for pics like the one on the right

fpbp.
(((They))) and mafia using modern "art" to laundry bloody money. That's all there is to it.

art reflects its times, historically the ideas of nations and men were grand and so was the art

this now is the age of nothing, all we have is cynicism, hence the degradation of all forms of art

...

Pseudo intellectualism which is a hallmark of progressive culture. "There is some deeper meaning, because we said there is some deeper meaning. If you don't see it, you're an idiot." It's an artificial intellectual class structure meant to create an illusion of superiority, which can be exploited to give increased credibility to all "arguments."

soviethistory.msu.edu/1961-2/khrushchev-on-the-arts/khrushchev-on-the-arts-texts/khrushchev-on-modern-art/

Khrushchev will always be my favorite politician

Also, I think we soon will see how this market will crash with no survivors due to intrusion of cypto.

PragerU on why modern art is so bad youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

Guggenheim Abu Dhabi will never open.

>(((They))) and mafia using modern "art" to laundry bloody money.

What do you mean by blood money?

it's just money laundering and tax evasion user.

If you buy a piece of artwork for 1m, then have someone evaluate it as being worth 50m, then donate it to an art gallery. You get 50m in tax credits against your 100m income which covers all income tax and you only paid 1% of your income for.

Trump's "Tax Plan" removes lots of that shit, that's why it's going to make the country money by lowering taxes.

Somebody had fancy education in private art school or is somebody of somebody popular since birth, that's how. Other than that nobody got time these days to draw a painting for 1 year. Water color and no mistakes allowed ain't as easy as computer program with unlimited retries and geometry helpers.

youtube.com/watch?v=oZOsR0TzbJ8

>How did art go from that to this?
Photography started the slide. Paintings for most of history were attempting to reproduce lifelike and photorealistic scenes. Once photography came along that was no longer a goal. Then artists started experimenting and we ended up here.

Art is an awesome way to launder money.
Basically, government banned drugs, and prostitution, so people found ways of trading cash using other means.
Art, bitcoin, etc. It matters not. That $50,000,000 painting came with a free cargo container of cocaine.

Basically, moralfaggots ruin everything through unintended consequences, and Jesus Christ sucks dicks in hell.

It's market that is bad. You have 2 type of popular artists(excluding porn ones who aren't artists):
- those with fancy education and market popularity
- those who accidentally get bought by some rich weirdo like picture related painting bought for 166 million dollars, so market again

It's the market that decides what is worthy. Old masters get sold by 1000 dollars each or less, while new ones can go for millions.

I agree with all the sentiments regarding modern art, but I will always love Jackson Pollack

Contemporary art. Modern art ended around the 50s or 60s or so.

Cherrypicking, there are plenty of artists painting and mimicking the old masters today as well. I can direct you to Nerdrum's kitsch movement if you want that kind of aesthetics. Art doesn't progress in a linear line, user. But if you're wondering why you don't find Rembrant-esque academic art in galleries that much, it's simply because there aren't as many of them as the other guys, and it takes a lot more time to produce such paintings, so there's less of them in general. Playing the devil's advocate, these days, the picture on the right might honestly speak to a person more than the one on the left. We consume so much media and information these days, all these photos and images we can create and transform digitally in a second, that the left one doesn't really have much of an impact. The right one is very vulgar and unnerving in its simplicity, sort of a refreshment to what we see in our daily lives. Abstract art, hyperrealism, performances and installations are not without value. It's just different things and different tastes and different moods. Art hasn't changed, there's just more possibilities now.

>Jackson Pollack
CIA sponsored fraud

careful with that edge kiddo

very good answer

Someone said kikes did this so that their classical realistic art would become more valuable.

...

>The notion that the public accepts or rejects anything in Modern Art, the notion that the public scorns, ignores, fails to comprehend, allows to wither, crushes the spirit of, or commits any other crime against Art or any individual artist is merely a romantic fiction, a bittersweet Trilby sentiment. The game is completed and the trophies distributed long before the public knows what has happened. - Tom Wolfe

Literally CIA warfare.

It's true though. Government does a thing and the market figures a way around that thing. Every challenge provokes responses.

You didn't think humanity would allow drugs and underage fucking to be banned without an answer did you?

agreed. also painting served a different function before the advent of photgraphy. much of the representative "art" youll see in museums were commissioned for reasons that a plethora of contemporary fields fill nowadays; documentation, investment, gifts etc.
"art" is and has always been a verb and a noun, much like "love" and its utility and meaning changes with the context and point in time.

How does one launder money for underage fucking, pizza stores?

Other than money laundering: more people know how to paint well, which decreases the value of nice-looking paintings. Photography also decreases the value of nice-looking paintings.

Jews

Just no.
This is exactly what they whispered in the ear of the Emperor, while he pranced about naked.
Art was never, and isn't simply about, translating reality into a realistic image. And yo know it, even while you pretend it was.

Perhaps. But artwork is the main means, because artwork value is 100% subjective. It's the perfect medium for cleaning large sums of money, just like bitcoin is the perfect medium for cleaning middle-class money.
You think it's mere coincidence that "modern art" rose with the banning of drugs by governments in the west? Drug dealers and those involved in black market activities will always find a way.

Agreed, Warhol onward shit went downhill fast.

Woah man how did religion end up here? we're talking about paintings

It did not evolve, it devolved because of jews.

drugs

Are you not aware of the very public record or modern art being used by the CIA to fight communist ideals?

youtube.com/watch?v=Dw5kme5Q_Yo

Even soyboy fags like this guy can destroy modern art

Pretty sure childrens finger paintings have been around longer then cameras.

>Can I sell you a picture of a soup can for $10M and claim it was legal?
>What methods do jews use to launder money?

>Art was never, and isn't simply about, translating reality into a realistic image.
I don't think anyone said that, mate.

Well, churches did commission a lot of art back in the day.

Same reason why lefties make themselves freaks music is horrid and architecture is soulless

Philosophically ideas of Marxism (oppressor and oppressed). Have been applied to everything . No ideas can be considered correct or true, there are no objective beauty standards and there is no celebration of place and culture.

And worse in an effort to correct the dichotomy of oppressor and oppressed they now actively celebrate hideousness and subvert beauty and culture
It’s cultural Marxism

Ima post stuff that is (strictly speaking) Modern Art.

This. OP is one of those fags who thinks kids could make this kind of art. Pro tip: they couldn't and they only can now because they are copying plus they still wouldn't know any theory of what they are doing. OP, just go back to sucking dicks.

>How did art go from that to this?
money laundering, how hard is it to figure out?

1920s

modern art is the OG crypto currency and is a stable and safe investment because you can get away with overinflating and not deal with a crash.
and there is tons of pretentious pricks that gives legitimacy to value. put a 6 gorillion price tag on something and it must be amazing, right? a high price tag is self validating

1930s

>5 seconds on Deviant Art

interesting concept
bad anatomy and lighting which makes Manga look like master pieces.

Now THAT'S a lot of fedoras..

Are they /ourguys/?

1950s

t. clueless pretentious retarded artfag

fpbp, nailed it

Give a kid a crayon and some finger paint and tell them to fuck up a canvas. Then sell for 4 million dollars.

Are you a brainlet ?

>who thinks kids could make this kind of art
>Give a kid a crayon and some finger paint and tell them to fuck up a canvas. Then sell for 4 million
sonyclassics.com/mykidcouldpaintthat/

People got tired of needing talent so they convinced everyone else talent was overrated.

...

now THAT is ART

Tax evasion at the very least.

>Art hasn't changed, there's just more possibilities now.
Exactly. Mattress girl sucking off a plump, tiny dicked man is just as artistic as anything from the Renaissance.

Look at this faggot who thinks capturing a scene realistically was ever the point of western art.

Realism is simply a means to an end. It helps a work get its message across clearly and helps more complex messages to be expressed. (((Modern art))) in forgoing all realism is necessarily either simplistic, ambiguous or both.

This made me really upset

...

That picture is awfully impressionistic

>money-laundering
Or worse, human trafficking.

Art is about one human conveying emotion to another through some sort of live or recorded serious of actions, and price is about determining the value of a good or service through how much an individual or group demand it in their lives.

It does not matter how much YOU’D pay for it, if enough of the right emotion is translated clearly enough through the medium to the right individual with enough money, any piece of art will accrue immense ‘value.’

Wait this is just a shitpost thread you didn’t want a real answer OP. So I guess it was the (((joos))) lol

WRONG. Art is specifically the portrayal of a platonic ideal of some sort. no ideal, no art.

I'd say its pretty close to a middleground between the two

I understand that they're trying to do the next dada and piss off le establishment. But in the end they're just a bunch of faggots watching faggots putt stuff in each other's butts.

Section 167 of the Canadian Criminal Code
167. (1) Every one commits an offence who, being the lessee, manager, agent or person in charge of a theatre, presents or gives or allows to be presented or given therein an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation.

(2) Every one commits an offence who takes part or appears as an actor, a performer or an assistant in any capacity, in an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation in a theatre. [R.S., c.C-34, s.163.]

Again: a means to an end. If a high degree of realism isn't helping your message be expressed then feel free to simplify things. The only important thing is that your message is being conveyed clearly. You might even be able to achieve that without any kind of realism at all. Though if that were the case I'd guess your message was rather inane.

...

>platonic ideal
Normalfags who don’t like to buffer their vocabulary through thesauruses and then play semantics on ching chong cartoon messageboards usually just call those ‘emotions’ user

turkish circle?

>Section 167 of the Canadian Criminal Code
>167. (1) Every one commits an offence who, being the lessee, manager, agent or person in charge of a theatre, presents or gives or allows to be presented or given therein an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation.
>(2) Every one commits an offence who takes part or appears as an actor, a performer or an assistant in any capacity, in an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation in a theatre. [R.S., c.C-34, s.163.]
Stop being such an intolerant homophobic bigot user

>placing mimsesis above diegesis

I seriously hope you guys don’t do this

emotions can be a subset of platonic forms but they are in no ways identical. Modern art might be said to convey the platonic form of entropy (not an emotion!) or disorder, but that's a tired trope.

Fuck off you Dada relativist scum. Nation wrecking ideology you have there.

I agree :^) I'm one of those fags who think's abstract art has value :^)

God how far up your own asshole do you have to be to think this is art? At a certain point you have to realize you're not expressing anything except your contempt for ideas.

This may come off as pedantic but I understand that people don't think abstracting things is beautiful but you still need to recognize the talent it takes to abstract things to their finest forms. Take Picasso, he could do real-to-life art easily. His early work showed this, but as he kept growing he kept reducing and abstracting scenes and objects until it was at its utmost basic form and you could still understand what it was. It's like free-form jazz. Yes, anyone can make noise, anyone can put lines on the canvas, but understanding the how and the why they're able to do it makes all the difference. Pic related.

Let's not forget that utter shit was initially popularized by the CIA during the cold war. Basically weird shit like Jackson Pollack's clusterfucks were "sold" for shitloads as part of a psyop. If USA citizens were so obscenely wealthy that they could just throw money away like that, then surely there must be enough opulence to spare for a poor Russian defector.

Agreed. Something about Pollack that puts me in a trance

>If a high degree of realism isn't helping your message be expressed then feel free to simplify things. The only important thing is that your message is being conveyed clearly.
>realism
>simplify things
>clear message
Obfuscation is denial of reality.

There are painting's where the inent is not to express how the artist is feeling. Jeeze

But user... The painting that is obfuscating reality IS real :^)

Faggots

LOL my 4yo can do better

The problem is after Picasso's name became synonymous with art a new generation of "artists" aimed to copy his final step without following the intermediate steps. It leaves us with soulless, disgusting scribbles at best and an absolute fucking mess on average.

Your pic actually took some degree of skill and effort. I can recreate the paint splatters of modern (((art))) and put it next to an actual exhibition, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the worthless mess and (((masterpiece))).

when you get all sorts of fucked up on different drugs the picture on the left turns into real life
and the picture on the right blows your mind

I'm starting to think that art, or what is taken for art, isn't really up to the artist. There isn't a should or should not. It's all just a symptom of the time, and reflects the collective unconscious in an involuntary way. Picasso didn't choose to draw what he did because he wanted to do something, his drawings are simple the expected outcome of a modernist culture questioning itself to death.