Redpill me on modern art Veeky Forums

Is this art?

Money laundering.

well first off that looks like contemporary art, not modern art

get yer genres straight white boy

That's racist

Dankest of memes. Problems with money laundering in art are across the board. Surprisingly enough not exclusive to movements and eras you dislike but is due to the structure and practices of art auctions and auction houses.

Money laundering/ pushing the boundary of what can considered "art". It's a purely subjective word

Futurism is kinda interesting. I've seen some at a modern art museum in Rome back in 2012.

I need the full image to verify

You are supposed to reflect on the meaning the artist is seeking to create in the image, both in their own context and in yours. You are looking for enough complexity and contrast that the painting at least hints at a subject/emotion/concept/etc. You are assessing interrelations between elements and the significance of the selection of medium, you are asking yourself if you could express the apparent intent of the artist better; why they chose this format.

Finally you are assessing if the art resonates with you or how you like to express yourself, or if you have anything to learn about yourself from NOT liking the picture. You are reaffirming that it is OK to NOT like it and deciding if the part of you that objects to it is something you want to keep as a part of your filter for your perception of the world.

And then you decide if you will ever need to see the image again, or if you want to feel the way it made you feel in the future, or dismiss the picture as having served its purpose for YOU in one viewing.

Art is about understanding the image, its artist, yourself, and the intended audience.

If the image served no purpose and you gained nothing from it... then perhaps you werent ready for it yet, or you have already been over that ground before. Move on.

So what do YOU think of the image in the OP?

i thought that was post-modernism

It's shite and should be banned immediately.

It started out as a CIA meme, but now it's just a way to launder money.

inb4 "NYT is fake news"

nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html

>It started out as a CIA meme
So the CIA had/have/will have a time machine and they used it to travel back to the 1860s and create modern art
>, but now it's just a way to launder money.
>inb4 "NYT is fake news"
>nytimes.com/2013/05/13/arts/design/art-proves-attractive-refuge-for-money-launderers.html
Can you point out where the article says that modern art, rather than art as a whole due to the way auctions are conducted, is particularly vulnerable to money laundering?

It wasn't to combat traditionalism, they funded some exhibitions of abstract expressionist artists as a way of promoting the cultural vibrancy of the USA and by extension liberal democracy.

If you don't get it there's probably no hope for you, but ill try. Think of a piece of art as a philosophical argument. It's challenging the concept of what art is. The "my child could do this" argument is a formalist and aesthetic argument. These are boring arguments. It's about being original. No one gives a shit about your WOW fanfic drawings no matter how much effort or how "pretty" it is bc it's fucking derivative and boring. How many literally centuries of angels, Greco-Roman mythology, portraits, and landscapes do you need to see before you get bored. If you don't get Duchamp, Rothko, Warhol, Burden, Abramovic, then you're small minded and mediocre or a traditionalist (which is fine). Also, think about when the piece was made, if OPs pic was made in 1870 it's unfathomablely genius, if it was painted in 2010 it's absolute shit (my guess is mid to late 20th century). Do you get that and what that means? That means it doesn't have the same effect over time, as a piece gets older its less original and more interesting in a histotical/cultural way. Why is Citizen Kane the greatest movie of all time? Bc of what it did in it's context and bc of it's influence on the medium. You either do something new, really new, or you copy. Any hardworking idiot can copy. We don't care about hardworking, we care about ideas and intellectual novelty

...

Where's the intellectual novelty in a urinal or a statue of a midget jacking himself off on his face?

Idiotic useless posturing. How can you type so much and say so little

The intellectual jump from abstract painting to presenting a random object as art is huge, and in 1917. Fountain (Duchamp's urinal) changed art more than any other piece of art in all of human civilization (if we exclude religious texts). It begun Postmodernism. There is no more influential work of art in existence

Nothing comes close to how new and different Fountain was than its predecessors. You're just too stupid to understand this (or you're a traditionalist/classicist, which is boring, but at least internally consistent with denying the intellectual value of pomo art)

>The intellectual jump from abstract painting to presenting a random object as art is huge
Why exactly? Duchamp's urinal is just a laxy cash out. It's on par with picking a fucking roadside rock and then claiming it's art, thus it's art and worth at least 50k.

>Nothing comes close to how new and different
Why is a common item he bought or got a hold of from somewhere art? There's nothing revolutionary about it. It's a fucking urinal he peddled as some kind of a masterpiece. If it's art, why isn't every piss-stained urinal in restrooms considered art? What exactly is it about this particular urinal that made it so special that it got all the hype it did?

A statue of a midget jacking himself off on his face is funny, a fuck you to a haughty contemporary art world, and way more interesting than another landscape, historical portrait, or a statue of a dragon from your favorite MMORPG. Traditionalist formalists are like the desperate betas of the art world and the art critics are like their oneitises way over their league. Wwaaaa i spent 100hrs making this dragon statue why don't critics like it!!!!

that's retarded. you can say the same thing about those 'cool 3D world' animations on /wsg/. go watch some of those.

...So it's just a juvenile oh so intriguing and third eye opening commentary piece with nothing going for itself. It says something about the artist and the art world at large if a commentary piece on par with a 10 year old saying "fuck" for the first time and giggling afterwards is interesting and valuable.

I don't really appreciate post modern art either, but I think it's still pretty obvious if you think about it in the realm of ideas rather than effort. Generally speaking, art is subject to analysis by the individual to extract ideas. The valuation of art is by how much the experience evokes emotion or resonates ideas. Post Modernism is art that is symbolic of the philosophy. It challenges the format of art itself because the philosophy interprets everything as subjective.

The reason it's pretty shit is because we realise that art is art because it is beautiful and the message resonates. Post-modernism is just a really pseudo intellectual world view.

It's okay. You're angry and confused. Maybe you might be too dumb to understand it and that's a threat to your fragile asperger fueled ego. I literally can't explain it to you any further. Duchamp is virtually unanimously considered the most influential visual artist of all time by art historian and critics everywhere. Yes, a lot of modern and postmodern art is bullshit, but the importance of Fountain is not

Yeah those wsg animations are a part of the next important aesthetic art movement. They are very interesting and high art worthy

Art doesn't need to be political or have some social message. It can just be fun or just purely for the sake of art. I'm okay with nihilism, you're not

really I just think that modern art stuff is only enjoyed by people who stared at classical art for so long they got bored of it.

Postmodernist art reflects nihilism, egoism, anarchism, hedonism, and epicureanism in it's subconscious values. Cool shit.

Traditionalist/classicist art reflects idealism, dualism(psychological), modernism(philosophy), craftsmanship, religion, family, moralism, ethicalism. Pussy ass bitch stuff

Your values determine which type of art you prefer

So you're saying it's important because it's important? As if popularity means quality.

>Postmodernist art reflects nihilism, egoism, anarchism, hedonism, and epicureanism in it's subconscious values
15 year old socialist stoner tier values desu

>DUUUDE THIS POST MODERNIST STUFF IS LIKE, FUCKING RADICAL AND SHIT MAAAAN!!!

I'm barely left of center. My favorite news outlets are WSJ, FT, and the Economist. And I don't smoke weed

Go fantasize about being analy penetrated by daddy jesus

>DUUUDDEE CUNSUURBATISM IS LIKE DA NEWW COUNTA CULTURE MAN!!!!!

No that's not what i said. Can you make one intellecually honest argument to save your life?

Can you know good art to save your life?

Ok i give up you probably know better than me, post an example of what good art is

If the only thing you say to convince me is 'it's a hugely influential work' then that is what you are saying. You're not pointing to the value of the piece on its own, but to the importance that society has given it. You're making an argument from authority.

It influenced art after it more than any other work. Why? Because it was so new and unique. It changed how people thought about what could be art. It's not easy to fundamentally change the way the art world thinks about art

In the same way that Citizen Kane changed cinema, how Joyce changed literature, how Bach changed music, how Kant changed philosophy

>This looks like something an amateur could do.

Actually coming to the conclusion that this work is something justified in the history of art is harder than just thinking 'I will paint squares'

In any case it doesn't matter if it is something an amateur could do. If modern art is about combining art practices and life to realise the potential of the average post-Enlightenment citizen then the fact that amateurs are able to contribute to that project is a positive. Especially since the modernists were all about trying to find universal symbols and understanding the depths of human consciousness and such; how basic the art is and how immediate and expressive it is just reinforces that idea of universality.

>the question is boring therefore you shouldn't ask it
hmm

>How many literally centuries of angels, Greco-Roman mythology, portraits, and landscapes do you need to see before you get bored.
People don't live for centuries. Like today when people are first told they are edgy intellectuals for considering a 100 year old urinal to be art, good wholesome young Anglo gentlemen on the Grand Tour seeing the Sistine Chapel for the first time would think it is great.

>"my child could do this"
>but they didn't
>"because they are not a celebrity artist"
>exactly!
>*smug pout*
Yes, we get it, celebrity and media can elevate a can of shit to art, in fact people already knew this and it was only until mass media that you could actually find dupes who don't say "funny but nah" so it is not really a revelation. However why stop there? Why not go full realist? Where is the proof art is sacred? It can be explained by psychology/neurology thus it is of no more value than masturbation. You can only conclude the enjoyment of the urinal is due to being brainwashed into thinking it makes you superior.

Wouldn't it be better to "brainwash" yourself to enjoy something more palatable instead of getting scammed? The Anglo was brainwashed to believe it is the rightful heir to Rome, you are brainwashed into neurotic whacky postmodernism, both spooks, both self-fulfilling prophecies, but which one would you rather be? In the end the "bourgeois pigs" were right all along.

It is really -- modern theory like Greenberg's didn't care about the intention of the artist. I assumed that user was talking about a contemporary idea of art viewing which is informed by post-modernism

you are asking something impossible

no one can explain art to you for three basic reasons

firstly there is no definition to go by

secondly the posibilities and potentials of expressing ideas, naratives, conceptual relations, sentiments, states or any other form of meaning or achieving any kind of effect in the viever or reflecting or comenting on any system or state of things, experimenting with materials textures qualities and quantities etc etc...both figuratively and abstractly, are practicaly endless and any work of art thats worth two shits goes deep into the conceptual and systemic, way deeper and in far far higher ''resolution'' than the superficial external form

and thirdly because you are a 12yo imbecil and most likely a stormafggot, making it positively impossible to explain anything to you

so here have a nice image of dogs which are nice

The urinal isn't really a urinal and the midget thing isn't intellectually novel.

No one gives a shit about modern art either user.

The only thing giving it value is richfags willing to shell out cash for it. The difference between good and bad modern art is a richfags checkbook.

I suggest reading about it instead of getting in an argument and also expecting people to reasonably answer your questions.

Kind of true in a way.

Why are you posting this in a thread about modern art?

>This looks like something an amateur could do.
Then why didn't the amateur do it?
There's always this argument of "I could have done that!" or "a children could have done that!" Then why didn't you?

There's no "redpill" on modern art because it is the natural progression of giving the artist actual inspiration instead of having patrons specifically order the artist and his team in what to put in the artwork and how to carry it out.

Modern Art is truly where Art ceases to be simply arts and crafts and becomes a medium of proper expression.

>Yes, we get it, celebrity and media can elevate a can of shit to art

Not who you're arguing with so I'm not going to address the whole post. Artist's Shit isn't art because of celebrity, it's an interesting meditation on the parallels between the process in creating art and bodily processes. You are what you eat, basically.

Amateurs do do it.

Go to any gallery and there is tons of cheap shit art. It's not "great" modern art simply because it's not worth more.

you know out of the bazillion pieces of modern art created that only like 1% will ever make money and even fewer will be sold for high prices. People with know-how actually understand what's good modern art and what's not. Galleries don't just throw anything up.

>people with know-how
know how of differentiating a pile of shit and piss from a pile of shit and menstrual blood?

>Then why didn't the amateur do it?
My gf is an art student working for her MFA. She looked at a few famous pieces and compared it to introduction to art courses. And she wasn't looking at any art, she was looking at pieces hanging in the Tate Modern. The only difference between those canvases and the things beginners do are the fact that the artists were at the right point in history where that artwork was novel enough to be interesting (like Picasso) or they knew the right people to have their shit hanging in a big name museum (everything else).

Daily reminder that the same people who hate modern and contemporary art are the same people who whine about "degeneracy" and Jews on social media.

Sure, but that's just explaining the aftermath. I'm not saying it's a useless piece of shit, I just want to know why that piece is so good that it changed art so considerably.

So you mean with a lot of effort and value? You can point to Citizen Kane and Kant and explain why they're so important, so why can't you with this piece of art?

>It's about being original.
This would be a decent argument if the artwork itself wasn't so fucking boring itself.

It's a literal shitpost. I'll explain it in autismo speak so you will understand:

Once upon a time there were a bunch of elite faggots that decided that pure """art""" must be A E S T H E T I C to be considered art. For generations they created objectively beautiful painitings and sculptures. They also fucked a lot of hoes so they are basically the chads of art. Then one day a bunch of WEEBS got bullied and intimidated by these chads and asked themselves the question: what the fuck is art? So these weebs did what they do best: shitposting. This shitposting eventually was turned into art by (((society))), further raising the question: what the fuck is art?

So it's just shit and should be treated as such? Got it.

That's up to you. You may find beauty in the objective, someone else may find beauty in the abstract.

yeah, wow, its almost like theyre related

Basically people thought that basic shit without craftmanship or skill can't be art so when a dude proclaimed a urinal as an art piece it was revolutionary.

Analyze this. It's art.

*fart*

>& humanities

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

Why should art be hard to understand ? If the artist wants to relay a message, shouldn'it it be clear and present itself ?

Aren't the conflicting interpretations people have of some art works proof of the artist's failure to relay his message ?

This shitpost is art and you should venerate this post due to its status.

>Aren't the conflicting interpretations people have of some art works proof of the artist's failure to relay his message
It just means that the art community is full of condescending pseudo intellectuals who find meaning in a piece where there is none. They then go to a champagne party, circlejerk and pat each other in the back for being so much better than the great unwashed.

A lot of it is luck. Sort of like how no one will respond to this post, unless it's quads or higher. Then everyone will read it.

Septs or octs are saved and reposted even! True imortality!

modern art pave the way to how all art are actually shit

>history of art
it's okay

I unironically think this the most powerful idea created this century:
museumofnonvisibleart.com/gallery/
Saves a lot of resources and time if you're just making concept art that isn't really worth looking at.

t. a bunch of people who haven't even had the sufficient curiosity to read 5 pages of gombirch

Do these faggots take themselves seriously? I want to think most of this shit is just a very good and long going practical joke.

>a very good and long-going practical joke
That's the kind of art I like.

But yeah, I think they're on several layers of irony there:

Art is without value until it faces the market.
The market purveys value.
Money is banal until it has been spent.
Money spent on art is money transformed.
Money spent is mourned.
This mourning is eased by art.
We strive to enhance mourning.
Mourning is a response to what is not there.
An afterglow.

What you see does not matter.
What you have seen is everything.
All you truly buy is the afterglow.
It has value.

You must pay more for the glow that has no thing.
Nothing before.
Pure after.
Phosphenes.

You must bring what you have not made to market.
(The market will give it value.)
You must give to the market absence.
(Money is banal until spent.)
You must offer the market anguish.
(What is spent is painful.)
You must make the market beautiful.
(Nothing beautiful without pain.)
You must increase the world behind the eyes.
The wreck of the Medusa.
It left us with phosphenes.
You must conjure them and sell them.
Only when you have done this are you one of us.

Wasn't the urinal already an interesting meditation on bodily processes? It had already been done. It is still brainwashing.

Compare this to Mr and Mrs Andrews which triggered the counterculture movement at the time despite that never being the intention of the artist. Ironically all the modern artists were howling and beating their fists on the floor in rage because they assigned their own meaning to it the same way they assigned meaning to their skillless art.

Compare it also to something that required skill but had less "meaning" and can be assigned meaning. The fact that the meaning you assign to it is not a view popularly held should not matter.

>appeal to shit fallacy

I get what you are saying But that would take us forever to look at everything these days

>Wasn't the urinal already an interesting meditation on bodily processes?

No it was a 'fountain' signed by a non-existent artist. And it is the literal opposite of brainwashing.

I'm not sure what your point is.

But by that definition anything fun can be art.

I still think art is supposed to be high
Political message is my doorstep so that not everything floods through the gate to me

Art isn't hard to understand.

How do you know there is no meaning?

>hey I made this simple sculpture of a dick from a log while inna woods
>OH HOW EXQUISITE, A VERY PROFOUND COMMENTARY OF OUR CULTURE OF MASCULINITY DEMANDING MEN TO BE HARD AS A COCK THAT CAN BE BURNED AWAY TO REVEAL ONE'S INNER WEAKNESSES JUST LIKE WOOD BURNS TO COAL AND BECOMES FRAGILE t. Art community

That doesn't answer the question.

It is, show OP's pic to different, unrelated people and they'll all come up with a different interpretation. A majority, if not all of them, would have failed to understand the artist's message, therefore the message is hard to understand.

Artist made a dick sculpture because why the fuck not while not assigning any deeper meaning or truth to it, pretentious faggots look for deeper meaning behind said wooden hardon.