prove this isn't modern art.
>protip: you can't.
Prove this isn't modern art
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
modern art = I could do that! + yeah, but you didn't
sorry i don't speak watermelon.
>lacks composition
>unclear approach / goal
>mere digital scribble
>random, uncommon picture ratio (too much stretched langscape)
>poorly executed
>no reference to art history, no avantgarde tendencies
= can be dismissed as a piece of shit
same goes for ignorant OP
and in fact "i could do that!" in most cases is talking shit and not being capable at all.
ignorance isn't a wildcard for dismissing things you don't understand, OP
OP how did you come across the famous renaux du champ a field of red that is one of most sought after paintings in all of existence. OP what's your addy I'm a famous art dealer and scholar and would love to fly over and examine such an exquisite piece. Just look a the j'ai ne ce qois it's subtle lines speak of empires and the tender fruit of womanhood. You will be handsomely rewarded op for uncovering such a tasteful piece of art history. Really astonishing Picasso and his doodles would be totes jelly belly
It's not hanging in a gallery.
...
Finally some fellow intellectuals I can't imagine how people don't see the elegance beauty and skill needed to create
>red circle outside of white box
You guys are true thinkers and scholars
put it on a 4m x 4m canvas, get a pianist, rent a big industry hall and invite some hipsters and faggots the average new york self proclaimed avantgarde and this is modern art.
there are no criteria for distinguishing something as art. so this thread is pointless.
How dare you mock modern art and these two bright connoisseurs of fine art
Hello. My name is Jackson Pollock and I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to pass off symmography as modern art. What I do is much more random! Thank you.
Im sure the steaming t urds your dad drops in your mouth are avant garde art
When was it made?
no one bought it
here's a little bit to get your mind out of the gutter
>what was the function of a painting in the past?
depicting beauty, showing the rank of a person in a portrait, genre paintings of christian motifs etc. etc.
>but what is a painting anyway?
a painting is a visual representation of ideas that we know from experience: eg. a landscape
>can you push the boundaries of that? isn't a painting by definition just a medium for ideas?
yes. artists have since introduced other influenes:
impressionists like Georges seurat have included ideas and developements from photography and optical inventions (lenses)
finally, you can take influences from ANY area -> film, photography, print, the mere character of paint and surfaces etc. etc. etc.
>Is it still art, even if I stand in front of it and don't get the idea at all?
Yes, it is still art, even if you dipshit have no idea of art history and the background of the medium.
Art isn't your sunday entertainment date or your school trip from back then. You wouldn't say "Cars are shit, cause I don't know how a car engine works!" You don't dismiss this on the ground that you have no idea what it's doing.
.... PS I doubt that you even get any of this, .... dipshit.
But it is art!
dead silence.
20 years ago as a little kid 7 years old, I was holding red magnifying glasses to these red squiggles and lines to reveal a secret message or answer to a puzzle on cereal boxes and shit
Actually it is Post Modern art technically speaking since it imitates rather than belongs in the history of Modern art. More pastiche than anything, giving it one of the characteristics of Post Modernism.
It is art, anything can be art...that doesn't mean its good art!
The Black Painting by Peit Mondrian is his personal idea of the "last painting". Black paint is hardly used in realistic painting at all, because there is no true pitch black in nature either. Dark tones are usually achieved with mixes of blue and/or brown. ivory black is a "non-color". to make a painting back in HIS days that was JUST pitch black was a bold and insane idea and caused outrage.
you must always consider the context of the time at which the work was created. Russia was and still is especially conservative when it comes to art. To the art experts of back then, Mondrian was a madman for doing this.
very applicable.
>red circle outside of a box
the message here is very blatant and in plain sight: the frame of a picture is (or better, was) a very important element in a picture. it's used to emphasize a certain color or highten the value of a painting.
contemporary paintings typically have frames that are thin and entirely function and not decorative / not colored. this is because the idea of framing a picture became a silly nostalgic thing and old fashioned.
but the frame also acts as the boundary between the content of the picture and the wall. it's like the frame of a window.
This rather weak piece of art plays with exactly this notion: The content of the picture extends beyond the frame, it leaks out onto the wall, leaving the art medium. It's a weak point to make, but a valid one.
you are wrong.
except this painting was painted by Ad Reinhardt, an american painter active in the 50's and 60's.
well, it's too small to tell and very similar
mondrain made several versions of the blakc painting, varying sizes
MONDRIAN that is
/r/ picture of some guy who carved a dragon bitching about his thing being placed next to a sculpture of a guy sucking himself off
'Cause modern art is dumbshit prograde
I've seen this one and I actually agree. Very poor choice from the curators. And the auto-erotica is a piece of shit.
...
Yeah, I'd probably swear off art too if that happened to me.
There's a reason why you don't just put pieces randomly next to each other. They correlate, they are compared and influence each other.
Putting a detailed work carved from wood with a fantasy theme next to a carelessly crafted provocation is a fucking shit idea. probably some dumbass teachers calling the shots and not caring at all, limited space, general carelessness and incompetence, you name it.
Havent ever heared of it and am not able to find anything about it right now, if you have a source please share it with me.(also it's: Mondriaan :^) )
I most especially get a blast at hearing master artists talking about having to add flaws to their hyper realist works so people could relate to them.
>and here I left the back of his ear slightly deformed so people would accept it as art, rather than mere replication.
it is
Art is the recreation of reality based on an artists metaphysical value judgments the purpose of art is not didactic but rather to show
Why must it recreate reality? Why not to convey a dream or a fantasy?
>teenagers and listless 20somethings on Sup Forums in charge of art or being competent enough to recognize quality art
i've seen the "best albums" threads on here enough to know you're all embarrassing
my fucking mistake, man. I got him mixed up with Kazimir Malevich
>"Kazimir Malevich, Black Square"
en.wikipedia.org
the story is the same.
the painting has seen degraded a lot (visible cracks) but it was a plain, black surface.
so what part of that don't you understand exactly?
you clearly never made anything worthwhile like that yourself.
dreams are based on things you have seen, they are just mashed up and taken apart.
fragmented dream elements work the same way as metaphors do in a poem.
are we talking music taste now? superior taste faggot detected
Stfu illuminati will get ya
yeah it's modern art, but it's shit. objectively. you're a fucking philistine
Samefag?
What's dead silent?
Thanks m8, liked the story and was hoping it was true.
im learning so much
no one responding for three minutes. OP was probably shutting up, realizing his stupidity hard.
glad you got interested
sarcasm level is >9000
fuck you very much happy birthday
Lol kys just cuz you've done drugs don't mean others have
Yeah I'm sure
I'm also sure your both right cuz fuck you
it actually can be called art.
David Hockney famously started painting digital on his iPad. High quality prints in a tiled sort of fashion are presented at his shows.
Digital art is a valid medium, has been for long. OP has made a shit piece of poor quality, but it is still a picture in principle. And to stress this again: OP, you suck balls. Your piece is shit and your teenage mindset is unbearable. don't talk shit about stuff you know nothing about.
that's like, your opinion, man!
Actually that's the truth
The glass is 50% full
OP crawled in hole and shat himself
DUB threads matter!
You really need op to say it. That's what getting me
Not to me they don't. I'm picky like that
2 many white people on the web these days
>inb4: "you art fags can go fuck yourself! modern art is a joke, fuck you! anyone can do that!"
silly little thing called DUBS GET
Consider the following:
You don't know what you don't know.
Ignorance is bliss. The ignorant are always blissed
Haha I see, rollin
>there is no true pitch black in nature either
black holes, bitch
This looks like my notepad at the end of a work day
Take it for the opposite or the exact meaning.
use that b4 everything
Ignorance never worked for me.
everything i got interested in and learned more about was always enriching.
except modern car design. I fucking hate car designs.
Same. It's just weird cause when I listen and make both people happy were both happy over just 1 of us being happy
black holes suck light in. we are talking optics here. Things YOU see on PLANET EARTH. Shadows aren't "black", they are hazy and animated by your eye, because your eye doesn't accept total darkness.
There is a "super black" which is created from nano tubes - hardly any light is bounced off, it is the blackest black we know atm.
black in art history however, the pure ivory black, was hardly to never used.
you mean conversations? telling stories?
wow, OP here, i actually left at 2 replies, didn't think it will get to 65!
well, to sum it up for you
>tl;dr:
>OP is a dumb fucking faggot
So pretentious
*post-modern I think you mean
That's because it's art. I don't like it but maybe someone does. The value of art is defined by who wants it and how much they want it.
>so pretentious
Oh, boo fucking hoo!
The snowflake doesn't get it.
>"You're pretentious! Meeeh!"
You didn't say what it" means" it could've been modern art, but didn't say it's "deep meaning"
truly good art doesn't need any explanation.
OP is shithead with zero skill or understanding.
>dumb
This is at a modern art gallery and you cant argue
Agreed OP is 100% correct
"Modern" tag is unnecessary, it's art
Somebody please post that picture. That sounds hilarious
The fact that you don't understand it OR that you don't like it doesn't take it's status as art. Who do you think you are, not knowing shit about art history, but thinking you can turn up and judge?
I don't like that piece either, but I can tell you that's it's probably oil on canvas, color applied with a spatula, probably turpentine for the runny paint parts.
It's abstract with a tendency towards the figurative, since the shapes seem a bit "on top of each other" with a certain weight to them.
Looking at paintings on a computer screen is completely wrong to begin with. Painting is still valid BECAUSE it can't be reproduced. The depth of paint applied to a surface is endless. Paintings need to be looked at in real life, that's why there are more and more museums and galleries popping up.
You can't have the same experience watching lord of the rings on a cellphone as it would be in the cinema under the perfect and intended conditions.
it's only modern art (more like post-modern tbqh famalam) if you can get some rich kike to buy it
can't find it sorry
I tried
"Sup Forums art dragon sculpture auto-fellatio"
which pretty much sums it up. the guy who made the dragon said he'd quit, because he hated that his piece was shown next to on that was just obscene and crappy.
This somehow makes it art? Lol
If you have to tell people that it's art and/or why it's art, then it's not art you fucking dipshit special snowflake cunt.
tell me now, what's "pretentious" about it?
How about you explain art history to me and how it developed to become "modern art"?
The blackest black we know is black holes considering light cannot escape them, making it absolute black.
>that doesn't mean its good art!
who are you? the ruling voice of all that is good?
Again, the fact that you don't know shit about art doesn't change it's validity. You are in no position to judge. Obviously, you don't know the first thing about paintings or art history.
Imagine a guy comes along and tells you Hitler made the Autobahn and was a cool guy. Then someone tells him "What the fuck? Don't you know anything about WW2?"
And the guy answers: "That's not the point, the fact that he made the Autobahn is still great! I don't care about the rest, fuck you."
That's a retarded example, but it's very valid here. Here don't know shit about art theory, yet you have the audacity to dismiss things you have no clue about as "bad" and say "it's not art, because I don't see the meaning". Your ignorance is no base for a judgement.
---> >black holes suck light in. we are talking optics here. Things YOU see on PLANET EARTH. Shadows aren't "black", they are hazy and animated by your eye, because your eye doesn't accept total darkness.
>There is a "super black" which is created from nano tubes - hardly any light is bounced off, it is the blackest black we know atm.
>black in art history however, the pure ivory black, was hardly to never used.
>Who do you think you are, not knowing shit about art history, but thinking you can turn up and judge?
fuck you
I'm very proud not to be a snowflake, you little asswipe. Snowflakes are the scum.
You can easily tell that people have no fucking clue of art, if they come along telling you
"anything that doesn't look realistic is worthless to me! Art is supposed to be beautiful and uplifting!"
Which is probably something you will agree on, telling by your funny dog painting.
You need art to work like a flat joke: It's easily readable and the point is clear.
Anything else is beyond you.
Art that doesn't have a linear narrative is shit to you, I guess.
With this much ignorance, you disqualify yourself right away.
Much worse, you make a fool of yourself, if you happen to talk to people who actually know the subject.
My friendly recommendation to you: Shut up about art.
>fuck you
what a witty response! I guess it hurts to realize you're talking shit, huh.
OP is applying lotion to heal the burn
>hurr durr i took an art history class in highschool so i know everytig about art and i can explain why everything is art xDdddd
Once again. If you have to tell people it's art, it's not art. End of story. If you disagree with me you're retarded and should chug a liter of bleach. Not responding after this.