Why is modern "art" so shit?

Why is modern "art" so shit?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc
youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
youtube.com/watch?v=Z0PMq4XGtZ4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
columbia.edu/itc/barnard/arthist/wolff/pdfs/week4_cockcroft.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

__________________________

This really made me think

Because the (((critics))) are cultural marxists.

youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc

Here you go OP

youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

Jews intentionally poisoning the well

You can hear this guy just ALMOST naming the Jew.

Basically it's a way of poisoning the development of "high" culture by changing the notion of what art used to be an Artsian Mastery of a single style or method to create works of art that only a few could ever dream to match the skill used to make it.

Modern art doesn't requrie mastery or skill, what it requires is bullshitting. Modern art exists to choke dedication. It's a way of pushing out cultural advancement by building a wall of shit around the truely skilled and demoralizing their will do dedicate themselves.

Look at Music, Modern music is the same way when you compare it to the Classics.

Look at Modern Literature


Modern art, music and literature is the "Common Core" of their respective fields.

Because modern art is a money laundering meme for rich people.

Poor artists creates faggy stupid shit, says you just don't 'Le get it'

>implying it took any artistic ability and isn't just the use of symbolism which requires little talent

Richfags buy it to one up each other's ego's, while at the same time being able to put a lot of money into a physical asset. Ps they probably don't understand the art, and probably don't care. They're just sociopaths keeping up with the neighbors.

Edgy faggots like Warhol and Pollock opened the door for tryhards with no talent to say their finger-paintings are meaningful and sheit.

Art is an expression of the soul, of the artists emotions. Classical art embodies this, often a historical or fictional piece meant to spark and feed an emotional response from the person viewing it.

Modern art doesn't do this. Modern art is emotionless. The modern artist requires the person viewing it to force an emotional interpretation onto it since it the art itself cannot naturally invoke one.

This. I cringe whenever someone says they like either """""""""""(((((((((((artist)))))))))))""""""""""""

youtube.com/watch?v=Z0PMq4XGtZ4

relativism. Art is no longer a way to represent something just a way to express your feelings

please elaborate. just curios and want to know more. no shitposting

Idiots make stupid crap, other idiots look at stupid crap then discuss how it makes them feel, artist idiot and critic idiot then compare note and make up new words to try to describe their newfound sense of superiority. Both then ask the government for money claiming cultural enrichment. Normal people look at the shit and say wtf is that?

One of Pollock's most famous paintings was him getting high and throwing paint off of a balcony onto a canvas.

This is true art. The skill required is enormous compared to that of the newfag art generation.

"art"

also more shit like this.. stuff that would make person defending Pollock and Warhol shut his mouth.

>Why is modern "art" so shit?
Because that's what it is.

It's deriving meaning out of no effort and simplicity, or lazily thought out ideas. I've seen so many bullshit wannabe pictures with 3 or 4 "artists" around it discussing some deep philosophical feels outer body experience that it's supposed to evoke and I just want to put my head through glass. Art used to take effort and real pristine accuracy and attention to detail. Now you can draw a line or a cock and unravel the universe with it. It's rewarding lazy/irrational thinking and substandard work. It's the wannabes crying for attention and demanding recognition for their underachievement.

Modern art is shit because it lacks inspiration. Look at all the great works of art over the last few centuries and you will find 2 themes.

1. Faith
Art built on faith has produced some of the greatest murals, buildings, and paintings of the last 500 years. Faith allows the artist to feel their connection with god in their work.

2. Historical Events and Legends
Many historical events such as the assassination of Julius Caesar and the legends of Hercules have been turned into works of art to preserve and idolize the significance of these things on the idea of humanity.

Modern art lacks the things that made true art great and that is why true talent has become ignored.

the whole "block of solid colour" thing isn't about the painting, but about the skill it took to paint the colour flawlessly solid and flat. there is no obvious brushmark. can you create that? they aren't just prints when it's real.

Nobody denies this except delusional "art"fags.

The modern day art schooling system is nothing short of a massive circlejerk to praise each others "artwork" when in reality they know it's fucking shit.

I've no idea how they justify at all.

>It's representative of the human condition
>It shows the duality of man
>it's abstract, you're not supposed to get it

>open embed link
>looks like a fucking jew rat
>ready myself for (((them)))
>mfw its a genuinely good attack on modern art

Modern art is a scheme to launder money

A goal of comunism to get rid of identity, make all modern art the same everywhere so peole always feel at home.
No more tradition, no more beauty.
Tell me last time some town in europe put a normal statue in a square.

Why are you niggers always blaming the jews? Since photography, rendering photorealistic paintings lost much of its novelty. Then as a reaction there was Impressionism and all this other abstraction began... and painting became more about the concepts and appreciating the painting as an image in itself instead of merely a medium to depict other things.

You're ignoring shit like that when you talk about modern art. Photorealism is just not exciting in painting since the medium has evolved.

Also, you're also being faggots by using a word like "art" as a term to indicate value. Art is art just like science is science. It's worthless unless it actually does mean something to someone. If all that line means to anyone is some way for a kike to launder money, then that's fine. You don't have to buy it for a million dollars and hang it on your wall. It doesn't mean it isn't art though, just because all you can appreciate are still lives of oranges and candles lol.

Modern art is a money laundering scheme

There are plenty of good current artists they just all work on film and video games rather than art for arts sake

>the truely skilled
Like you and your friends?

By the way, retards, you're participating in modern art every time you spread Pepes around. You're just angry because you're still poor and line boy in the OP is memeing in the big markets.

>PragerU
Dennis Prager is jew

Uh, yes, that is a part of it. However, more of it has to do with the history of the artist and what their reasoning was behind it. If their father just died and this was say a representation of their heartbeat or something such as that. Once we achieved photo realistic drawing capabilities and photographs it became less about skill and more about ideals and feelings.

I have a degree in fine art. My job is to 3D model another artists 2D idea for a statue and it gets sent off to the molding department. Statues for gardens and such you find at your local green houses

They're not ignoring it, they're criticizing it you mouth breather.

>that fucking awful post modernist argument at the end

Kill yourself.

Yes, its art, but its bad art that should be recognised and criticised as such.

Same reason everything sucks: Marxism.

Seriously. Read Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word, it's only 70 pages or so, explains it all. Modern Art isn't about the aesthetics, it's political, rebellion against Bourgeois values like aesthetics and skill.

>Why is modern "art" so shit?

Just to be clear here, when you say modern art you're actually denouncing nearly hundred years of significant art history (impressionism, post-impressionism etc.)

If you want to shit on art, Contemporary art is the way to go.

>Warhol

TRIGGERED

I fucking hate people who like him so fucking much.

The cunt literally, to their fucking faces, called them shallow pretentious pieces of shit, and they thought it was brilliant and then bought all his works for millions and made him incredibly famous.

His works were LITERALLY mass produced, shallow, populist drivel, and he made a fucking point of making this known. And people STILL gave him all this money and fame for it.

I can't hate the autistic sociopath. He played the game and played it well.

I can certainly hate the people that let him get away with it, though.

Modern Art is nothing more than a farce. A work of Art is a creation of Effort that creates an Emotional response by ways of the Creation alone. Shit like this doesn't invoke a response. You are "compelled" to do so because of either it's environment (being in a gallery under white lights) or you have to be "told" that it's art by third party sources. A line is a line is a line. If the work on its own cannot create this response then it is not Art.

Because it's no longer art.

Modern art (the expensive kind), is an industry of means of manipulating money for the purpose of tax evasion, offshoring, money laundering, etc. All the edgy artists who immitate modern art, are just retards who think "if he can sell shit for million dollars, why can't I??" And noone gives shit about them.

Source: I run a studio that gets rented for "art exhibitions" where shit art is sold for 100ks, and we act as an escrow as well, and see what is what. It's just one big bribefest of shady characters, with overseas accounts or dealing in bitcoin. Seriously, noone wants to buy a period stained bath towel for 600 btc because "art"

Impressionist art isn't modern art in the same way that the Ford Model A isn't a modern car.

The impressionists have genuine merit.

Explain why it's bad art and fall all over yourself, you pathetic retard. I haven't seen one thoughtful critique of the image, nor has anyone here even indicated that you know what the image is. I'm just responding to the weekly modern-art triggering that goes on with you retards.

The closest anyone came here to actually giving credit to work like that is admitting that it involves an emphasis on symbolism, but then proceeds to say it requires little skill which baffles me. What the fuck do you mean, symbolism requires little skill... where do you idiots get this shit?

All of the formal elements of design are still relevant and accounted for in modern art. Every modern painting still has to deal with formal issues of color and spacing and size and texture etc. etc. subject matter.. overall composition.

I don't see how it's "bad" art, bud. You're gonna have to explain that to me. But, it's easy around here to get away with being angry at anything modern and pass it off as an argument.

The Dutch.

Prager videos are based, except when they defend Israel tooth and nail.

No it literally means art from that period. Nowadays we use modern freely like we use the word theory, but in art it has a specific meaning like theory in science does.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art

You're just arbitrarily drawing lines in the sand. Do you like any art where you can't point at it and say "that's ?" easily?

I suppose you think when Picasso was developing cubism he was just sitting in his room trying to come up with a way to make drafting skill (of which he had a ton) irrelevant?

Modern art is dead, it died the very moment it became seen as art. It's not shocking or bold anymore, it's just ugly and dead.

fpbp

Jews are literally boasting about how they created modernism to subvert traditional European art and culture

Usted aprobó la bomba al amia?

Can you please explain what makes it good art and why?

Masterpiece

There's literally a fucking video here you blind faggot

Modern art is shit because it rejects objective standards of measurement in favour of emotional appraisal; all art is good art because the act of making art itself is now seen as inherently artistic. You can literally shit in a can and it will be considered good art because it's a form of "expression".

Believe it or not, artistic standards used to be very objective.

Completely fucking irrelevant to anything I said and not even an argument, are you retarded?

As if "contemporary art" isn't just as inane a distinction.

Then I stand corrected.

Thank you for actually taking the time to explain your position instead of just shitting everywhere like an autistic retard, as has done.

I think you'd have to blame the (((patrons)))

Emperor's new clothes.

10/10 It's ok. IPN

Yo la detoné

Atheism

Modern art doesn't reject all objective standards of measurement, because that's impossible. There are always standards by which we measure things. All modern art is not considered "good", moron. And you don't have to consider it good either. But I want to know what you do consider good, because I suspect butthurt fags like you who go on about how modern art doesn't take any skill just like stupid paintings of mountains and shit.

You think that modern art has brainwashed people into thinking that painting a photorealistic landscape requires no skill? Everyone still knows that. But, you're saying modern art doesn't require skill, so prove it.

First of all, retard, you said the impressionists had merit, which means you're ok with a level of abstraction. It has everything to do with your comment, you dumb shit.

And you can't even respond to a single thing I've said. You suck that guy's dick because he's not flat out disagreeing with you, but with me you sit there unable to respond to any of my posts.

CIA created modern art in USA during and after 50s to show those pesky soviets how liberal america is.

kek

forgot link

independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

Literally says modern art already existed and we just used it to show off how creative we were thanks to not being commies.

>"Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete."

I refuse to take credit for pre-IKEA furniture.

I don't know... the leaf ruins it.

Excellent video, by the way.

Exellent drawing, such a smooth line. This is art folk!

Or enjoy your period while spreading your legs over some paper by standing on two ladders.

Feminists are known to do that in public.

>expecting anti-US yuropoors to acknowledge facts
They will literally scream CIA if their umbrella got stolen

...

also what i consider problematic always in these threads is lack of understanding towards art.

art changed, why?
because there was no need to paint portraits or landscapes if you could make it with camera. what is the reason for a craft, when a machine could do it for you?

technology was pushing art constantly back and forth, and artist adjusted to that.

the main reason impressionism started was invention of the tube, so they could start caring their colours outdoors. before, all painting were made indoors. (they had to mix pigment with oils, and this was quite an issue to carry all of these things outdoors)

technology pushed art to become more of a philosophy then a craft.

the point is that cia made modern art popular, if cia didn't pushed it, it would die out and nobody would care about it in USA.

lets try to sell it, i am not even joking.
e-bay, print on a4 or letter format, and lets pump bids, so it catches up.

I'll take this one for 6000000 bucks!

Aesthetics -
According to its Greek etymology, ‘that which evokes a strong sensation’. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.

Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonizes aesthetics. It associates (rightly) the will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics iconoclastic tradition.
With plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, the ugly, the unachieved, the unformed, the most far fetched nonsense, the shady and the watered down are now preferred to the aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.

Since the mid-twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by the dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, the power of forms, the exaltation and the elevation of sensation and beauty — notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which become a pretext for degeneracy, willful ugliness, and subsidized incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaningless and obscurity enthralls the intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, the authentic artist, is ostracized or marginalized — as if he was politically correct. Hence, the paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, the inversion of values and new forms of primitivism.

We’re witnessing the simultaneous cohabitation of (1) abstruse ‘contemporary’ art subsidized by the system, (2) a cult which turns the ‘past’ into museum pieces, and (3) a commercial and consumerist subculture. Contemporary art has become the very opposite of avant-garde art. Its sad impostures haven’t budged for a century. It combines a dull academism, impostures, an absence of talent, and financial speculation. Instead of aesthetics, the system prefer pessimistic or suicidal values of representation, those that come from chaos and deformity, nonsense, pathological abstraction, regression, infantilism, scatology, a psychotic pornography: the exaltation of primitive forms. Accompanying this wretchedness, this impotence of old men, there’s the vulgar, artificial boom of costume-culture, which is to culture what costume jewellery is to jewelry.

The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to the dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.

In its historical essence, the political is a declension of aesthetics. ‘Grand Politics’ aims, in effect, at forming a people in history, making civilization a creator of great works, turning civilization itself into a work — a work of art.

This conception opposes the modern doctrine that reduces the political to the administrative, that hollows out the notion of a people’s destiny, and rejects the creative projects of the statesmen for the sake of career politician.

— Guillaume Faye, Why We Fight: Manifesto of the European Resistance

No it's not.

You made that and then derisively called it art.

Does anyone have the screenshot of the eBay auction of a picture of a screenshot of an user saying "anything is art, this post is art".

>the point is that cia made modern art popular, if cia didn't pushed it, it would die out and nobody would care about it in USA.

Yeah sure.

here you go

best artwork i seen in recent years. no joking, we could discuss.

how new are you?

do you really think sheeps would actually start caring about splatted paint on canvas?

because people with little to no talent wanted to be artists

I agree with OP, what he made is art
What meow, phaggot?

___________________________

sure they wanted to live like scrubs for whole live
(or half, if they got lucky)

I think it would've happened on its own, yeah. The CIA wouldn't have used it to show off to the Russians if it didn't have its own intrinsic value in art. Furthermore, that's the way art was moving in general and whether it caught on quickly or slowly it was inevitable. I know those things you're saying about how technology influenced art.. if you look at one of my earlier posts I reference the camera. But, then you should agree with me. After artists became able to paint outdoors and in far places easily, after photorealism in painting lost its novelty thanks to the camera, after computers started to become common, etc. do you think abstraction wouldn't become the focus of painting and art?

Impressionism IS cancer. Its the marijuana of the art world that the kikes used a gateway to the current state of (((art))).

Impressionism was spearheaded by bohemian socialists and their Jewish bedfellows.

Bad art always existed. And like all bad art, this too will fade in time.

It's still not art.

Apriori fallacy.

its not that they want to be poor struggling artists
they want to create something that gets them attention and have people praise them and their work and >really make you think

______\_\_____
\\ \\

Yeah, but that's just one cynical way of looking at it. You have to admit that art has also been valuable to them in their lives and they feel the need to make something of value too as a contribution.

For example, I'm sure you've heard songs that have affected you in ways that have made you fantasize about writing a song yourself.. or I'd bet you've even tried it a little bit while driving or in the shower.

Because it's modern.

Bad art in the past never got as much praise as it does today, though

>columbia.edu/itc/barnard/arthist/wolff/pdfs/week4_cockcroft.pdf
tldr; The Rockefellers did not want communism, neither did CIA, so they both worked to persuade European intellectuals that the USA was culturally superior, one of many tactics in the cold war. The Soviets were doing the exact same thing, we just won. The artists were merely pawns, and in most cases, left-wing, and would be outright rejected by the general public for both their political views and their art. Most of you who are upset with post-WW2 modern art would most likely prefer the Russian art to have won. It would have changed art today. Too bad they were commies.

This is now a socialist realism thread

Part of the uglification of the world

the jews or someone wants the world to be fuck ugly for whatever reason

It's pretty cute. Only western (((art))) is shit.

because it's 2016

God I love pixiv