Just observe the seemingly haphazard distribution of hues and pigments, as though it was hastily strewn together by a person who dropped out of art school because the instructor just didn't get his interpretation of the human form as represtented by three jagged lines and a splash of taupe.
How do you feel about modern art?
Other urls found in this thread:
I hate it. I hate all modern art and modern artists. I can't even begin to convey how much every single cell in my fucking body ignites with pure unadulterated hatred for the modern fucking art crowd and their horseshit philosophical bullshit. I was fucking in ecstasy when that warehouse in Oakland burned down and killed 30+ people, because they all represent the most loathsome inhuman scum, modern artists, that I'm capable of imagining in my worst fever-pitched nightmares.
I don't like it, is what I'm saying.
The background colors reflect emotion and the "smoothness" of it reflects the intensity.
Surrealism was the last good art movement
Huh, so you are like the old fogeys that hated Picasso's shit and tried to desperately control what art could be to people.
Shit tastes for a shit person, I guess.
>I was fucking in ecstasy when that warehouse in Oakland burned down and killed 30+ people, because they all represent the most loathsome inhuman scum, modern artists, that I'm capable of imagining in my worst fever-pitched nightmares.
You know a lot of the stuff that subculture makes is actual art, right? They're drawing actual things, not abstract cubism or period blood or whatever pisses you off. Also, you sound autistic.
I'm with you buddy. Modern art is cancer.
No, I think the Renaissance was the best possible time for art, and it has never been better since then. Art is a fucking business. It's about skill and talent and experience and practice. It's about being someone who studies and trains and expands upon techniques and ideas. It's about delivering a high-quality product to people who demand it and, most importantly, pay for it. Fuck your feelings and fuck your emotions. They don't mean god damned shit and nobody fucking cares.
The greatest art in human history was all delivered by a business-like professional who was fulfilling a request and earning a paycheck. That's how all great human endeavors should work.
Not him, but I hate art that looks like it had little to no effort put into it.
When it looks like something that I could paint in under twenty minutes, then it's shit. The only art that's being performed here is the art of illusion and false grandeur by convincing people that something incredibly simple is much more deep than it actually is.
I hate the postmodern stuff Ronnie is talking about that people tend to mislabel as modern art, but generally like actual modern art. Although I don't blame people for confusing the two since contemporary art hasn't been modern art for nearly 40 years.
I think the problem may be in the actual term itself. Every lay person is going to assume that something labeled modern art is contemporary with themselves. I understand that art deco is modern art, but no one outside of scholars would define it as such.
Hmmm so your problem is you just don't get it. You do realize a good majority of that sort of art originated out of protest to the big wigs who tried to control what art should be. So they broke the norm.
Sometimes there is truth to simplicity. Granted maybe it has been oversaturated since, but the primary point at first was to prove something about the world of art.
Yeah, Andy Warhol made some kind of a point, and nobody who came after him got the fucking point and just figured that a lack of effort and shit delivery was the goal.
There is no such thing as art.
I'm curious as to your reasoning behind that statement.
>So they broke the norm.
They broke the norm and started creating garbage. Great.
I feel it has its place, and I would like to see more of a focus put on modern art that has actual craftsmanship to it, but it often just seems to be a money laundering operation where people can spin out piles of junk, brand them as "art" and insist people simply don't get it if they criticise it.
What I do think is retarded about modern art is how they think they are all so "rebellious" as if an unmade bed is telling the "art establishment" to go fuck itself and patting themselves on the back for it, when in reality, they ARE the artistic establishment, making toothless comments about themselves if anything, a true artistic rebellion in modern day would be a return to traditional methods.
Unquestionably. I've long ago given up on the expectation for terms and genre labels outside of the most broad and well-established to convey any sort of consistent meaning. I've accepted that the in most cases the best option is to display a not-quite-deserved sense of smug superiority in my knowledge of the "correct" terminology even if it's worthless when no one else uses it in that manner.
Art has never ever been about art itself
It has always been about the ability to convince something is art. Does a piece convince you it is art through a show of technical prowess? Then it is art. Does a piece convince you it is art through some sort of elicitation of feeling? Then it is art. Something is only ever not art when a group of people, despite all attempts, feel absolutely nothing to a piece. It literally can't be art because it's nothing. It's a painting sold by Walmart. It's a wall decoration. No one gave it a single thought as to promoting it as art from conception to production to market.
You can't say something isn't art when someone else says its art. Because that's literally what the definition is, a work that is something more than just its existence.
as a small addition to this, the true problem people have with modern art isn't the classification of art but the valuation of art
This comic reminds me of me.
That's fair, but I think the best solution is to simply change how things are defined in order to match the common usage. We really should come up with a term to define the actual "modern" art of the early 20th century that will stand on it's own so people can identify it. And moving forward, everything is "modern" art so long as we can commonly define a period of art that is contemporary with ourselves. Once that passes, we just choose a term that best defines that period for historical posterity. I don't think this is a weird way to look at things. We've already done it for the past century with pop-culture, with everyone having a fairly well understood definition of cultural norms being defined by decades that we don't even fully identify until well over 10 years after they've passed. We all understand what it means to be '70s, '80s, and '90s, but we're still defining the '00s as we progress through the '10s.
Art is just an opinion label that declares that the is "art". Meaning that anything from a blank room to someones hard work of 10 years on a project hold the same merit, being "art".
>t. Hitler
>Hmmm so your problem is you just don't get it.
If you're going to act like a tool you can at least try to be convincing.
>Meaning that anything from a blank room to someones hard work of 10 years on a project hold the same merit, being "art".
why does this bother anyone?
The same can be said of entertainment. The hot knife videos are monetarily valued the same as some short films with big budgets. It's all and only about what people derive from it.
so how long before the obligatory Loss edit.
>What I do think is retarded about modern art is how they think they are all so "rebellious" as if an unmade bed is telling the "art establishment" to go fuck itself and patting themselves on the back for it,
That's not just modern art. At some point people started believing desctruction and breaking norms is good by default.
You do realize this isn't /ic/, right?
I disagree. I feel far more moved and in touch with the broader concepts of humanity by $5 bathroom decorations sold at WalMart than anything by Jackson Pollock. I mean that sincerely and I will back that up using horseshit emotional bullshit I've read supporting Jackson Pollock.
Something we can buy at WalMart needed to go through a design process. A single creator worked on the piece and built it for mass appeal, but the ultimate design was decided upon by committee. It took hundreds of people providing feedback to this nameless artist, each plopping in a thought to the chamberpot of "art" that was this design-by-committee aesthetic that ultimately provided the final design. It's development represents the ultimate globalization of all humanity, where no single person exists in a vacuum and no one person even matters in the ultimate scheme of things. We're all connected through technology and development. There is no room for the single artist. And afterwards, this design is digitally sent to several nations for mass production, to be replicated ad infinitum for the masses who all equally decided upon the look and then decided to pay for its endless duplication. Thus the WalMart bathroom painting tells the full story about our place in modern society.
>horseshit
>bullshit
Whoa! Doubleshit. Modern art is shit confirmed. Its so fucking sad that the school of impressionism reached this point. It was originally a bunch of painters rebelling against the overly political and conformist high art society. Which ironically the modern art scene resembles.
Picasso's works are pieces of shit. It only got popularity due to the rise of the "different its good, muh symbolism" crowd that disregards the skill technical aspects of art that they couldn't understand.
>I feel
and other people feel too
You're thinking of post-modern art.
It's a weird distinction because it has a parallel but not exact time period with modern and post-modern philosophy (keep in mind that thematically they don't have to relate but just so happen to correspond to time periods)
reminder that pretending to understand is in itself an understanding
I'm saying we have reached that stage now, we have art that people claim to enjoy because it is "daring for going against artistic norms" or whatever, there isn't a room of stuffy art professors who become shocked and have their monocles dropped into glasses of champagne by this artwork, it's just artists who claim their art is great and daring and rebellious seemingly unaware that they themselves have become the establishment.
It's either just so above my head it simply appears to be piles of ugly junk to me, for I am nothing but an uneducated philistine who could never truly understand art or these artists are running an "emporer's clothes" style scam on people.
Its a misunderstanding if you don't actually understand anything. Unless the subject is abstract you can be right or wrong.
Modern art and everything to do with it is hideous. Everything contained within that echo chamber of stupidity and self-congratulation is a festering blight that is going to hobble the creative industry for years to come. Why strive to improve yourself or apply personal effort and drive to accomplish something when you can just buy your way through life and everyone tells you you dun good?
Go over to Sup Forums right now and find one of the Mass Effect threads. Find the webm of the gun snatching animation. And remember that someone paid someone money for that shit.
people around here are too plebby for it
like that one board likes to make faces and pretend to yell about brutalist architecture and yet they're probably a-okay with vynil siding and decorative window shutters because it reminds them of Leave It to Beaver
Why is anyone here btohering to argue about this? Art is one of those horrifically pretentious fields where sophism, absurd leaps of logic and appeals to emotion are encouraged, so there is literally no logical way to argue what is and isn't art, the water is simply way too muddied.
For myself, I hate modern art because it mostly looks like shit.
I came in here expecting a loss edit.
Where is the loss edit.
Yeah. I guess that was my fucking point in far fewer words. What I was ultimately trying to say is that feelings don't mean anything, and they don't define art. Anyone can bullshit their feelings into something.
It's in your mind. Release the artist inside you and show it to the rest of the world!
>He can't appreciate vinyl siding and decorative window shutters
>He can't even spell vinyl
>He calls others plebs
Because fuck you! That's why.
>someone creates something they say is art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"
>someone else other than the creator considers it art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"
>the piece is hosted in galleries that have housed other pieces you do consider is art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"
>the piece is monetarily valued as art
>"I don't like it, it's not art"
At what point can you consider something to not be art or art?
Do not try to speak for myself over whether or not I understand the concept of modern art. If I did not "get it", I wouldn't have posted.
The majority of modern art do not seek the same protesting message that you claim, or to prove a point other than that there are plenty of people willing to overvalue the price of a incredibly lackluster piece of work. They're not there to fight against anything, but to make money or gain recognition with as little effort as possible.
It's the same as claiming that a 3 year old's crayon-scribbled mess is on equal standings with other grand, actual exemplary pieces of modern art. And that stating otherwise means that you're too "simple minded" to understand the meaning behind it and how it fights against modern art trends and rules.
Even then if an artpiece was to have its message be as what you stated 100% without any ulterior motives, the message is tired and seen as a joke due to the oversaturation of pitiful art pieces. It was a rightful message then, but it opened the floodgates to many artists who copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied and copied the same idea repeatedly until it's become the joke that it is today.
When I like it.
When I can't make it myself.
u're rite this looks rly good bb soz
>Why is anyone here bothering to argue about this?
because you can only hear "you just don't get it" so many times
You just explained it yourself. Art is one of those fields where "muh feelings" is far more important than anything else, it's a lost battle.
So if someone else thinks something is art, then you must think its art?
I'm sure someone out there considers really expensive headsets to be works of art, along with matchboxes and really nice looking candy. In this world where all you need is for someone in the world to consider something art for it to actually be art, what wouldn't be art?
What if the author is intentionally misleading?
Godot is one of the seminal works of the last century and the author basically admits to fucking with people in several interviews.
...
>Art is a fucking business
Well that was easy. Now just put on a trip so I can filter your stupid ass
>admits to fucking with people in several interviews
Wait. What?
Nothing. Everything is art. And we can fucking prove this as a fact due to us already proving the corollary that everything, literally everything, is porn to at least one person.
Tell me how I'm wrong.
I am genuinely fucking eager to hear this explanation.
Then congratulations, the term is completely and utterly meaningless.
>I was fucking in ecstasy when that warehouse in Oakland burned down and killed 30+ people, because they all represent the most loathsome inhuman scum, modern artists, that I'm capable of imagining in my worst fever-pitched nightmares.
Holy shit it wasn't just me lol. I remember reading the descriptions of the people and what went on there and it seemed like the most hipster shit.
It really is.
By that reasoning, there ought to be people deliberately enforcing easy to rebel against norms for pay, in order to fuel the industries that exploit these "artists".
>it's an autists don't understand art thread
Yeah. But I don't think I'm not the guy you're arguing with. I agree with you. Art is meaningless by this definition. It really should mean something more.
Art as a term has become completely meaningless.
>"you just don't get it"
Ah yes, there it is
I summoned the artist within me to produce this work for all.
I'm surprised it took this long for someone else to even comment on it. But yeah, listening to the survivors talk, I finally understand Sup Forums. And that fucking terrifies me.
Thank you.
It used to have more meaning before modern artists came and decided to ruin it.
Again, I absolutely agree.
I'm hoping we'll eventually see a reversal of this shit in our lifetimes, but I'm not confident it'll happen until a decade from now.
>autist acts smug to prove himself a more higher person
Can't have an art thread without one of you types
I don't like it.
If someone doesn't "get it" then that directly implies that "getting it" is something tangible and it can be explained. So, let's hear it.
Explain Jackson Pollock.
While we're on the subject, what does everyone think of this?
I love it so much I bought a print through DeviantArt.
>filename
That about sums it up.
Art is a business right now. It's just where previously art was about decoration and demonstrating power and wealth, now art is all those things plus producing high value unregulated commodities for an international, unregulated speculative market. The better artists get this and approach the job of creating art with all the cynical calculation of an ad exec.
That's the thing that people who complain about modern art and people who strenuously defend it don't seem to get. You're like people who talk about horse racing without mentioning gambling, or who review movies without talking about the box office. You're talking about the superficial by-product of an activity that is ultimately and fundamentally about money.
Pic very much related.
Heh. That's fair.
I really like color: the more intense the better.
Remember when this thread was about a comic? Y'know, that one post.
welcome to Whomp! threads
Shouldn't you be on /qa/ crying to the mods?
Whomp threads have always devolved into inane nonsense. Remember when we spent two days arguing about screen doors?
It's art, man. If you don't like it you must not get it. It's not for you.
I personally can't find a way to argue with your points.
Fine. I'll accept that.
>People shiting on picasso of all people
>congratulating time instead of concept
This is like being fan of the fandom and not the show
You remind me of the dude who carved a dragon out of a tree.
Sounds a lot like Scott Adams.
I'd like to personally apologize for starting this thread with that question. I didn't consider the consequences.
>mfw this actually more of an artistic expression than anything else in the gallery
Fuck yeah, Mind Game. That movie was seriously a trip.
Asking about opinions on modern art is never a good conversation starter, unless you really want to start a fight.
You know, when I read that post, the first thing I thought was "is this the tree dragon guy?". Glad I wasn't the only one.
Modern art isn't the problem.
Conceptual art is. The idea that anything is art as long as it has a "concept" behind it. Conceptual art is literally the story of the Emperor's New Clothes with art dealers in the role of the tailor, and means they can sell someone a few haphazardly arranged bricks for millions of dollars.
It's not even a problem. It's just art that people put out there to be judged. It's not all good. It doesn't have to be. Who cares if some pretentious twat likes it?
It was all visions of his own death.
>your problem is you just don't get it. You do realize a good majority of that sort of art originated out of protest to the big wigs who tried to control what art should be. So they broke the norm.
this is the worst thing i have read on this website in years.
congratulations.
Boy howdy, I sure hate preformance art. I just learned recently that some bitch is australia is shoving wool up her cunt and then using said wool to knit and calling it art. If there is any form of art I despise in this modern era above all it is performance art.
All it's doing is giving idiots the ability to do mundane tasks, invovle their gentials and then idiots saying "WAKE UP SHEEPLE FEMALE GENITALS SHOULDN'T GROSS YOU OUT FEMINISM" when in reality everyone would also be grossed out if some man painted a recreation of the mona lisa with nothing but his dick.
But yes, I hate that type of modern art worse, abstract isn't too far behind, but I'll be blunt also. When I was a kid, every art piece I made was "abstract" because I knew it took little skill and maybe I'd get lucky and someone might say it was good. So what the fuck does that say?
i agree with this greatly.
i can appreciate more abstract works as long as it has aesthetic and quality.
meaning is nice as long as it is clear, and presented as being set before the design process began, rather than deduced from contemplation on a finished piece.
But at least with non-conceptual modern art, there's still some level of skill required. Someone still has to pick up a paintbrush and think up a composition, even if it is just squares or some shit.
Conceptual art requires no skill at all except coming up with a bullshit "concept" that your urinal you fished out of a dumpster or broken tent represents, and that's why its worth hundereds of thousands of times more than another piece of junk. And that's not artistic, that's just being a shyster.