Modern Art

We need to have a serious talk about Modern Art.

How did this all happen? The obvious starting point is of course impressionism. However, today, it is the teachings of cultural Marxists that continue to propagate us further into the realm of modernism and post-modernism.

If the rise of this trend really was impressionism--developing pretty much before Marx would have really been in the foreground of everything--then why were these soon taken to so kindly by the communists?

Soviet revolutionary art is completely avant-garde (pic absolutely related). I know eventually these images got banned because they were really emulations of the what the west was doing, but why was the west doing this, and now why today are the communists back at it.

Modern Art is the most vulgar and disgusting form of expression there is. It's actually worse than pop-music. How did it happen, what really occured in peoples minds that in a 100 year period we went from David to Lautrec and Klimt.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/lNI07egoefc
bookzz.org/book/1600125/02e9d0
youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
openculture.com/2013/04/how_the_cia_turned_american_abstract_expressionism_into_cold_war_propaganda.html
independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/20/paul-mccarthy-butt-plug-sculpture-paris-rightwing-backlash
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Modern art is backed mostly by billionaires who want to invest in something that they can resell in the future for ridiculous interest. It's a bit like investing in stock except the returns are guaranteed.

That being said, I really doubt that there is much of an agenda in art; people don't care about it enough.

The Recognitions by Gaddis anticipates all of this, definitely worth reading.

Modern art is literally money laundering

modern art is about CIA funding art and secret operations

The Painted World by Tom Wolfe is also a good book on the subject

"Modern art" or degenerate art as it's more accurately called became dominant for three reasons:
>photography
>money laundering (look it up, it's 100% fact)
>brainwashing/indoctrination

actual marxist russian constructivism is pretty sweet.

Photography removed all incentive for artists to master realism.

Prior to photography artists were getting closer and closer to perfectly accurate recreations of scenes.

Literally nothing is stopping you from painting realistic scenes but noone will care about your paintings because a photographer will do it better.

Cool, I'll look into that soon, I'm studying art and architecture at the moment.

>>brainwashing/indoctrination
You make such a joke of yourself by resorting to that. Read a book leaf

Art Renewal Center ArtScam.
All your questions answered better than anyone can do it here.

Excatly.

You know what amortization is in economic term? Gradual writing off of valuse of something, Well, beside natural resources such as forests, lands etc, art is the only thing that cannot be written off like that. Everything else man made is (cars, buildings, furniture..)

That is why rich people buy art all the time, to park their money somewhere in which value will only go up.

Futurism is all right

You just literally make whatever the fuck you want, it's art

As you know, even this post is art

I'm going to play doubles advocate for a minute and say there is still good work being produced by lots of talented people.

You're just more likely to see it in other places as opposed to art galleries.

Money laundering is quite interesting to this concept, never even heard of it before.

It is a good symbol of how culture how become completely commoditized

youtu.be/lNI07egoefc

It can be okay, but doesn't it seem so empty.

One can really feel it coming out of a time of insecurity.

I'll do you one better,

bookzz.org/book/1600125/02e9d0

>"America's nerviest journalist" ("Newsweek") trains his satirical eye on Modern Art in this "masterpiece" ("The Washington Post") Wolfe's style has never been more dazzling, his wit never more keen. He addresses the scope of Modern Art, from its founding days as Abstract Expressionism through its transformations to Pop, Op, Minimal, and Conceptual. This is Tom Wolfe "at his most clever, amusing, and irreverent" ("San Francisco Chronicle").

...

>hotography removed all incentive for artists to master realism.
>Prior to photography artists were getting closer and closer to perfectly accurate recreations of scenes.
>Literally nothing is stopping you from painting realistic scenes but noone will care about your paintings because a photographer will do it better.

Wholly wrong.

Why the fuck would you post something like that when you know nothing about it? The Flemish mastered realism in the 15th century you fucking mong. That's why artists like Van Gogh and Monet impressed people; they had done something different, they 'made it new' again

Even modern flags and coat of arms look like garbage compared to one made traditionally

kek

I do like this video, I've seen it before, but I feel it leaves something out.

no...

Have you actually ever seen a good painting

Plus there was the photorealism movement in the 60s and 70s

modern art is a fucking shit

youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
the video is a good explanation. Basically art lost any standard thanks to relativism and it turned from trying to emulated what was considered "perfection", to just a form of personal expression

>You make such a joke of yourself by resorting to that. Read a book leaf
But it's the most immediately obvious reason, traditional art in school is shunned in preference for modernism. I remember even in my elementary school education all we learned about was Picasso, Picasso, Picasso

Moving forward, in university you will not see any positive views of traditional art from any students either, and especially not professors. I've been to a number of small student art exhibits on my campus and it's a complete joke.

I wholeheartedly agree.

This, absolutely this.

>traditional art in school is shunned in preference for modernism. I remember even in my elementary school education all we learned about was Picasso, Picasso, Picasso
>Moving forward, in university you will not see any positive views of traditional art from any students either, and especially not professors. I've been to a number of small student art exhibits on my campus and it's a complete joke.

Well that's the thing: the academies have been overrun by disappointed careerists who enjoy the 'sexy' side of art. It's just another aspect of the aggressive decline of the west.

Picasso however is incredible. You should pick up a book on art history and see where value in art comes from, try not to make assumptions, shit annoys the hell out of me.

Doesn't seem like the full book? Regardless I'll find a download somewhere.

>Moving forward, in university you will not see any positive views of traditional art from any students either, and especially not professors

Well that's odd. I'm in my final year of my arts degree and I've had a very different experience. There is definitely more of a focus on contemporary art but a lot of respect is given to traditional works, especially when it comes to the theory work.

Yes I agree.

My elementary school art teacher only had modern art hanging about the room. All she talked about? How good Picasso was.

Moving on through middle school we learned how to draw in cubist form, we never once were taught anything else.

Of course in a classical education one would not receive training in the fine arts, if one was not geared towards that. So its actually really funny that because these modern artists are so easy to emulate they teach 7th graders how to do it.

Alas now in college all anyone cares about is graphic design and modern art. If one is to express interest in the classics they are shunned as old-fashioned, it is really quite sad.

...

Ah shit sorry about that.

Didn't help that I misspelled the title of the book in my initial post. It's "Painted WORD" not "world"

>I'm in my final year of my arts degree
Nice one, I wanted to study arts but I need a job so I'm stuck balancing maths during the academic year and reading 10 hours a day the rest of the year. Sucks, but at least I can take it easy when I get a nice job sorted out.

I was also meant to go to uni in Australia.

Well first of all, the term modern art describes art made from around 1750 to about 1970.

A lot of what you guys like are actually modern art. Post-modern art is mostly what people complain about, made 1980-present.

So what kind of art do you not like? Do you not like Picasso? Or was he okay but you don't like Pollock?

I studied art history in college, ask away.

I've been somewhat divided on the subject myself.

I think modern art and architecture have their place but I agree that it can easily lead to degeneracy.

If you look at America from 20's to 60's modern art was abundant. From art deco to googie, all were modernist movements with cultural roots.

A lot of cultureless art exists now though. Minimalism and Bahaus specifically. These styles (Bahaus in particular) are a clear road to socialist ideas. Architecture is important.

So I think it's best to hover around mid centure modernism.
Don't subscribe to the notion that all decorative elements must be eliminated, like many minimalists believe.

I am not in the fine arts, but I am a writer, and I am studying literature in University right now.

Other than my Latin/Classics programs there is absolutely no respect for anything old.

And things that are old? Well they are then converted into critical theory so that we read Shakespeare and Dante as feminists and patriarchal rebels. It is really fucking disgusting.

All the focus is on random fucking authors from Africa and southeast Asian countries or what not. Pretty much if you're white, you're fucking meaningless.

It hurts a lot, my teachers won't even bother discussing an older piece of literature with me; it is like they have no interest whatsoever.

>tfw you exhaust your 'beat your cunt folder'

>Well that's the thing: the academies have been overrun by disappointed careerists who enjoy the 'sexy' side of art
Yes, and they indoctrinate their impressionable students into believing degenerate art has worth.

And Picasso, although he was a skilled in traditional technique, mostly produced garbage.

By exploring symbolism we can generate fresh thoughts Even though specific pieces like a toilet on a wall does not move you personally the act of creating that piece is still participating in a dialogue. Dumb memes can even contribute.

Art is the precursor to new thoughts and the only way for humans to continue progressing instead of fading out into the void.

>Picasso however is incredible.

M8 I've studied art history (I know I'm not the poster your replied to), in fact it was my major before I switched to literature. I just have absolutely no respect for him, I don't see talent, I don't see skill. Even theoretically I just hate it.

Abstractism and impressionism can be pretty cool and thoughtful if done correctly.

She's not a ten with that library.

Art used to serve a purpose. An artist would say " what a beautiful scene I should paint this so I can share it with others and bring beauty into there life". Now since the advent of photagraphy an artist says "this art is beautiful I want to create art and share it with other" as a result the art we see today is a parody of a parody of a parody, and any deep meaning or beauty has been lost except for those who have seen where it came from .ie the artist themselves.

Are you interested in the practical side or just the theory/history stuff?

'cause there's always little workshops and artist groups going on on weekends and stuff if you're looking to improve your skills and get some feedback.

Well that's really depressing. 2007 was my final year of high school and the year before that they'd taken out the classics from the high level English classes. Lucky for me it was my teacher's final year and he taught them anyway. Apparently he was really big in to theater so we got to cover all sorts of classic plays.

There is literally one Impressionist painting I like. I just really see it as the destruction and undermining of Western civilization and values.

>So I think it's best to hover around mid centure modernism.

This is dead on. Plus high modernism was not as edgy as people think, it was much more in line with classical tradition

The only stuff I've ever really liked from Picasso has been his analytical cubism works, and even then I think Braque might have him beat.

If have to understand that painting realistically, while still a standard, was not the purpose of showcasing art even back when everyone's art looked amazing.

The judges and gallery visitors back then go to see paintings like we would go see a movie. The purpose was to experience a story. At one point, people got tired of Hollywood Blockbusters, which were the realist paintings about classical stories or current political happening, and started to enjoy Indie movies which were what the Impressionists basically were.

Eventually this taste for unconventional paintings grew and artists start to experiment different ways of representing things as opposed to drawing them as they are.

And that's how modern paintings started.

>Plus high modernism was not as edgy as people think, it was much more in line with classical tradition

Please explain

Yes it is really depressing. I was reading Faust II and I asked my professor to help with an allegory, he just took it from me, looked at it, and was like yeah I have nothing to say.

The only fun thing was BTFO'ing him about Shakespeare on a weekly basis because I had a much better education on Philosophy and History than he did.

And that is the problem, these Lit professors are not well rounded at all. They have no background in historical studies and nothing in philosophy. They only know how to read a book from the view point of class struggle, gender identity, and psychoanalysis.

Anything can be fantastic if done correctly, but degenerate art makes a deliberate point of doing everything incorrectly, it's a joke.

forgot to pic

...

"Leaves something out"....lol.

You see, this is kind of the problem with Sup Forums.

Your hearts are definitely in the right place but to get your (instinctively perfectly sound) "feels" about (in this case) modern art confirmed by an authority, you really will fall for almost anything.

This sad Robert Florczak character is painfully obviously a cheap hustler. He mentions his "graduate students" at one point but my alarm bells went off when I saw, midway through the video, this graph appear which purported to trace "the decline of artistic standards between 1800 and 2000" by use of a squiggly line. It wouldn't have been quite so bad if it had just been a straight line descending at a 45 degree angle. But the little squiggles would seem to imply that painstaking research had been done which showed that art got a tiny bit better between, say, 1885 and 1887 and then took a little plunge again in 1888. In other words, the graph is a complete arbitrary invention that is meant to LOOK like it proves something but is in fact just a hokey visual prop to shore up an opinion the guy held anyway.

What kind of professor with "graduate students" tries to pull a stunt like THAT? I tried to find out and was not surprised to discover that, although his Wikipedia entry does make claims about him having taught at the Art Institute of Philadelphia, the Wiki is actually just lifted (by himself) from his own website and is scheduled for deletion for that reason.

As I say, I am not unsympathetic to the view that something has gone seriously wrong with modern art. But please guise, let's find better arguments as to why that is the case than the random self-serving inventions of this hack childrens-book illustrator.

Fucking kek

Your country is literally the cause of all of this.

Paris is equivalent to the ninth circle of hell in terms of art.

>M8 I've studied art history (I know I'm not the poster your replied to), in fact it was my major before I switched to literature. I just have absolutely no respect for him, I don't see talent, I don't see skill. Even theoretically I just hate it.

I don't care. I'm extremely well-studied in art and appreciate a lot of Picasso, though there is some garbage as said. Some faggot who had a module in art at university isn't going to sway my opinion

>Are you interested in the practical side or just the theory/history stuff?
Just theory and history. I study literature, history, languages and religion primarily. I studied a lot of religion and liked the christian art (I'm not christian though) and from there I got into studying the history and appreciating it a lot.

I guess learning about the classics means you have to have an objective understanding of things like the class of person who wrote it, who it was intended for, the time it was written, things that were happening that it was influenced by etc.

But fuck that noise "muh feels" is much easier.

Learning about the history and the stories is what makes studying classical works, be it literature or art, fun.

I blame Switzerland for harboring all those draft-dodging dadaists and futurists during WW1.

paintings like this is what caused the beginnings of modern art around 1750.

Everything was so faggy with the lighting and over decoration.

So then painters came up with the Film Noir of art history, neoclassicism. It returned art to classical roots and did away which faggotry.

Pic related, its by David

Yes exactly, it is almost thrilling to see all the connections. You read Thales and Heraclitus and then you see the link in Faust, and further into Nietzsche.

You see Aristotelian values translated into Machiavelli and in turn Shakespeare. It is so great to be able to make these connections.

But when I wanted to make a paper focus the connections between Ovid and Shakespeare, and add in becoming philosophy it "Wasn't critically analyzing the piece, maybe try something with how identity dismantles the patriarchy."

You are thinking of Rococo, the french classical period (their baroque period really, but it was more classical than christian) was anything but decadent. And David is from an even later time period than Poussin (not who I pictured but a contemporary, that is the neo-classical style (which is just as classically oriented).

Decadent = Pic related

The CIA played a role in advancing the "modern art" movement in the early Cold War to counteract Soviet ideology, to prove that Americans fostered individualism in contrast to collectivism...

This sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's been public knowledge for a long long time.

openculture.com/2013/04/how_the_cia_turned_american_abstract_expressionism_into_cold_war_propaganda.html

Ok. I could make this long but I'll take a quick example. Ulysses by Joyce is always liked for the wrong reasons. People think it's great because there is so much data in it, so many riddles, etc. But it's literary significance comes from Joyce finding himself in the tradition of Western Literature and anticipating where it can go next in a spiritually depleted culture.

That's a very very very brief explanation. Picasso fits into this sort of mode, but some of his african shit and ceramics don't and are fairly insignificant.

Picasso and Joyce just happen to have inspired a bunch of idiots for all the wrong reasons.

That's a fundamentally important thing these days: liking things for the right and wrong reasons. You only have a frame of reference for comparison within a tradition and only within the tradition of significant art can you make sound judgements.

Tl;Dr: Read more.

i was referring to the other user's picture, which was clearly baroque, i show David as an example of what came about after.

I study literature trust me I think I read enough.

I completely get the comparison to Joyce, and although I understand Ulysses, and I get the entire cannon tradition within it, I can't help but feel like the world would be better off without Joyce--or literally any of the moderns--because they led to things like Beckett, and eventually just chaos.

>tfw Sup Forums is better at being /lit/ than /lit/

>How did this all happen?
independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

>using dadaist as a derogatory term

Reminder that the king of pol was a dadaist

futurists were fascists, though?

I can't even use that board it just pisses me off.

They all want to suck DFW's cock, and he is just literally the most degenerate thing to live; they might as well be reading John Greene.

" ART "

>Beckett
Literally the most significant writer after Joyce (perhaps tied in second place with Gaddis and Mann). He's doing the same thing, trying to see where we can go next; but he is swamped by Joyce and can't see anything left.

Evola is worthless

it had nothing to go with marxism

Duchamp basically invented modern art and he was inspired by Stirner and Stirner thought Marxism was dumb.

I'm British, though I live in Paris.
But yes, I agree with you that the arrant nonsense that Parisian pseudo-philosophers were producing between, say, 1950 and 1980 has done incalculable harm to the academic world and to the artistic institutions that largely depend on it. Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Zizek - above all fucking Zizek!!!! - are arrant nonsense from the first word to the last and every one of today's "conceptual artists" invests a hell of a lot less time actually MAKING the 30-foot polystyrene buttplug that he or she calls his / her "sculpture" than s/he does searching for quotes from Gilles fucking Deleuze to explain and justify the piece of shit s/he's created.
It's actually getting better, though. There are several "Parisian philosophers" writing today who are exhilaratingly eloquent in their absolute intolerance for these kinds of multi-million-dollar scams and acts of state-subsidized public vandalism.
I wish you could read French so it'd make sense to link you to a video recording the magnificent scorn and fury our estimable philosopher Alain Finkielkraut poured on the French government when they described the people who vandalized this disgusting piece of worthless obscene nonsense that disfigured the Place Vendome for months as "ignorant criminals"

theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/20/paul-mccarthy-butt-plug-sculpture-paris-rightwing-backlash

and not, as would have been more correct, the degenerate talentless fuck who "created" it or the fat cynical billionaires who paid him millions to do so.

the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

I'm the exact same.

I think me and you would get along great user

When I was 15 I loved Beckett.

Then I started to classically train myself and I just can't fucking conceive how I liked him.

This idea of progression that "trying to see where we can go next" is the problem. The ancients didn't have this idea of progression like the modern man does. That is what fuels liberalism.

>Modern Art is the most vulgar and disgusting form of expression there is. It's actually worse than pop-music.

Amen! Bowden said the same thing!

pop art is the last bastion of traditional values, especially comics etc

It's trophy culture that's seeped into a visual industry, especially since women have infiltrated it. No more value is placed on objective quality because that would hurt someone's feelings. So they say art is 100% subjective and pictures of squatting over a toilet are art.

Modern art shits are a diamond dozen

Give me the names nonetheless. I have very minor training in French but a good french who is 100% fluent.

it's jews, who else?

Modern art (i.e. 1874-1950s) didn't appear on its own. There was a whole mindset, with full support from literary and "intellectual" circles.
While impressionism started out completely apolitical (it's a myth that all impressionists were rejected artists from French artistic cursus honorum; they were praised and appreciated by people back then), modern art gained mainstream support after the war, because many of modern artists were leftists. Especially the dada movement, for example. It's also the reason why nobody is giving a shit about European Art Deco nor Futurism nowadays (because they are somewhat at least a little fascist).
Don't forget that every leftie was called a hero in Europe after WW2.

Nowadays, contemporary art works differently. People are obsessed about political purpose of art. While you might think that most of us would simply laugh and walk it off, actually there is a real current trend that doesn't only affect the super rich. Switch on your TV, read a magazine, and everybody is boasting about how they want their home "modern" with "contemporary design". People auction off their grandma's 19th cent. painting, even for small money (200 dollars). It's quite depressing really.

Futurism' credo, although it had fascist roots (so it can't be completely degenerate), had some degenerate undertones, such as smashing the old/ancient world in the literal sense, and that includes museums that house Old Masters art.

I would defend a lot of works from 1920-1960, even stuff like Pollock because at that time, they were experimenting with the edges of painting.

A lot of those works were less about demonstrating what you can show with paint and more to do with how a person can paint and how a person can experience a painting.

They were stretching and testing the limits of the medium.

It's like instead of making a new video game about shooting monsters back in late 80s, devs wondered if story and plot could be added to videogames.

Not so sure it is

Man I hate commie arch. and art - ugly & boring . Why ex-ussr/east eu keep this concrete madness.

(they may have only 1 or 2 good stuffs )

I never knew Sup Forums had such a hard-on for art.


It's a perfect example of Western culture, really. Has anyone else made great works that can compete?

With that bookshelf I could definitely see it.

Unfortunately I don't have pics of mine (never participated in those threads) so I can't share.

I can't see the titles of your everyman's but I am assuming that you have their translation of Dante?

Also not the P&V of Tolstoy????

>Then I started to classically train myself and I just can't fucking conceive how I liked him.
>This idea of progression that "trying to see where we can go next" is the problem. The ancients didn't have this idea of progression like the modern man does. That is what fuels liberalism.

Gaddis attacks the problems with that viewpoint as well, but he is only pointing out flaws with it. Just like in an interview where he explains that he isn't shouting "down with capitalism", he's just pointing out the abuses of what is the best system we have.

Read Beckett again after you read more.

Also don't forget that the classical writers and artists were also doing the same thing. The problem is that people get a misconception in their heads and it ruins everything.

I commonly try to bring it out, but this is the most successful I've ever been.

don't post Pollock to defend modern art, it doesnt translate well on the internet because a lot of its experiences from seeing it first hand. Seeing it flat as a jpg makes it look garbage and proves nothing.

artist with no vision vs artists with visions

Stay butthurt Schiele is a great painter

Jackson pollock is a massive cuck faggot. Man I fucking hate that lazy pretentious fuck.

There's usually at least one good art/architecture thread a week.

I've gone back to Beckett, I cannot help feeling seething degeneracy.

It's disgusting, it is harmful, psychologically to the human mind to dwell in that Nihilism.

>Jackson pollock is a massive cuck faggot. Man I fucking hate that lazy pretentious fuck

THIS

that talentless drunkard

also, pic rel thoughts?

and when hitler came to power schiele's paintings were part of the degenerate art gallery.

They were also part of different time periods, hitler's period were much stricter and placed importance on being technically skilled.