What's the real reason for why modern art is a bunch of postmodern Marxist bullshit...

this video is so fucking painful to watch
pragerU is truly the buzzfeed of the right
also
>2 million views
we're fucking doomed

catpcha: burns school

if you want to stop coming off like a ridiculous farmer why don't you try watching this series instead:

youtube.com/watch?v=J3ne7Udaetg

not an argument, pinko

>Praising classical art over modern art is being "a ridiculous farmer"

A very peculiar attempt at poisoning the well, CTR.

Was just about to recommend this.

What would a modern day classical painter even paint? What would it even reflect? A tradition way out of touch with the real. The world is different place now.

I really don't understand why /pol/ hates modern art so much. I get that it's not for everyone but I don't understand the total frothing indignation that aren't you don't like exists.

>It's a /pol/ boogeyman post.
embryo tier post

Hi /pol/

I think that most of modern art is shit because it's not so specific or profound but there are good images. Like the one you have there is technically good but visually meaningless and easily duplicated by others in theory of randomness

>modern art is universally recognized as shit among non contrarians
>this is somehow /pol/s fault
fuck off back to r/books

if /pol/ were smart they would realize modern art was part of the fascist movement, but then again they're /pol/ so...

>I am so mad that people don't like scribblings on a canvas I am going to blame /pol/ and make multiple posts endlessly bitching
cuck

>picabia was neither, he had a flair for the ol' in-out, mechanical sex, mechanical self

lol hughes had sick bants

eh, there isn't much to argue
the video makes a lot of retarded jumps from very different art periods and vulgarly lumps them in this nonsense super category "the great masters of the past". You can see this in the way he uses the term "classical art" very very broadly.
It's basically a video aimed at american normies who never received any art education, it serves to validate their anti-intellectualism and their preconcept of good craftsmanship being the only important thing there is in art (notice how he carefully avoids mentioning van gogh). it's the equivalent of goodreads reviews that categorize Ulysses as being "just intellectual masturbation", or of normies listening to the moonlight sonata and a bunch of other super famous music pieces and feeling that they have the right to give their pleb opinions about rumorism or minimalism
with that being said, i hate the feminist period blood ""art"" just as much as you do

I think it's meaningful. It seems evocative of the swamp and subsequently the total abundance of life and head within a swamp. But when turned upside down being evocative of snowy mountains and subsequently the total cold barren wastes of a snowy mountain. It seems to contrast natural imagery in that way.
It's not though. It seems to only be really hated by butthurt-brigades that roam the internet looking for things to be indignant about, like /pol/. I never see people who like modern art roaming around shouting about how great modern art is on every board, but I do see anti-modern artfags doing this all the time. Anti-modern artfags are like the vegans of art.

The Jews control it and use it as a never ending inside joke that only Jewish kids will ever understand who went to Jewish camp and Jewish Sunday school.

I have literally never met someone intelligent who hated modern art. It's not that appreciators of modern art are wine sniffing phonies. They are just literally more patrician than you and you have to strawman them to feel good about having retarded eyes that only understand mimesis

>eyes that only understand mimesis
this
my favourite painter is Caravaggio and whenever i ask someone if they like him they all respond with "uh obviously bro he's good at painting bro like he's REALISTIC bro muh craftsmanship bro"

I doubt you have much life experience or would be able to recognize an intelligent person though

I doubt you understand how sad it is to think liking classic things is something noteworthy

I doubt I care.

CIA psyop. Not even kidding.
independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html

That goes without saying

Was waiting for the correct answer.

>Believing anything PragerU has to say

You may also join to a neo-nazi cult

Please, not this meme again. According to Veeky Forums, modern art is postmodern jewish communist CIA anti-communist money laundering. I'm not making this up, this is literally what people have said about it here.

Deskilling. It's a fucking disease. In cultural production today (Art, Design, Music etc..) the receiving public is fully willing to accept the deskilled object without question. People today make no attempt to see artistic production as a discipline (in the fullest form of it's meaning), rather artistic production becomes a game where by any criteria (or principle) applied to a work to critically assess it (determine to what degree it is "good") is dismissed as not essential to the work. Thank you, Duchamp.

As a result people are making straight up garbage and try to pretend it's conceptual, because they have no skill and no discipline. They hide behind the notion that skill, technique, discipline and craft are passe and somehow unconceptual. Most art is produced in a critical vacuum, an environment free of criticism - your fellow artists don't know shit and wouldn't want to offend you anyway. Not only that, 99% of criticism in magazines/internet/literature is purely masturbatory, artists are marketed as saints. Real criticism is key to art, without calling a work into crisis art can't move forward. The response to criticism should be defensive, but not in words - defensive in action. Defensive by making another, greater work. This is why art is stagnant.

postmodernism ended after the 70s

I'm not sure why Veeky Forums seems to think that everything after the 20th century is postmodernism

and there is plenty of good modern art, just like there was plenty of bad old art

I would list some but it's pointless because you guys will just shit on it even though I doubt you've read it

>american normies who never received any art education

shut the fuck up eurocuck

Indeed, Pollock and Rothko were creating in a vacuum and there's absolutely no precedent to them in any works of Picasso, Matisse or Miro, none at all (i suppose Peggy Guggenheim was CIA psyop as well and the movements in France reacting to abstract expressionism too).

Also nice fucking thread in which yet again modernist, postmodernist and contemporary are terms commingled into one great boogeyman, with a PragerU video (with such irrefutable gems in it as THE STANDARDS CHART) on top. Really haven't seen that one for some time.

>shut the fuck up eurocuck
no u

good lad

your post is shit but that artwork looks like it would be fitting for a cover of heart of darkness, kinda cool

What weird ranking is this? Almost all rankings put Cambridge at number one, even if America generally dominates.

it could be some kinda jewish conspiracy to destroy western civilization, or it may have something to do with photo realism being obsolete in the age of photography

by the way, the CIA did fund abstract art, that's well documented and not some kinda "lol tinfoil hat" delusion.

they didn't do it to "subvert ARE CULTURE" but to financially incentivize artists to move away from politically charged work. the same thing is done today in asia and latin america.

Love how none of these crypto storm plebs have no answer for this.

Stop being so afraid of things you don't understand and everything will be a lot easier for you.

Some of it is good, some of it is bad. Most of the stuff that's been posted in this thread is 10/10.

The real problem I have with modern art is the works that try and make a "statement". Not an issue in itself, but they try so hard to be controversial but don't go all the way, making the whole thing a toothless tiger. I'm talking about the picture of Jesus immersed in urine, etc. It's like the adult version of the "LOL so edgy xD" shit that teenage kids do.

I enjoy realism in paintings and sculpture, and I'm a bit sad that the realist tradition has fallen by the wayside, because I really don't think photography captures the same essence. I understand why it's no longer as popular, and a lot of modern art is really, really good, but I also wish we could have a token amount of new realist works during exhibitions.

This is all coming from what Veeky Forums would call a poltard, by the way.

They would paint what they always painted. God is eternal, unchanging, harmonious. Art made in His grace similarly touches the infinite and thus stands the test of time.

>Almost all rankings put Cambridge at number one

bwahaha is that the kind of shit they feed plebs in the uk? cambridge maybe top 5, also mad respect to that list for putting gay ass yale so low, fuck yale

dumb burger
>also mad respect to that list for putting gay ass yale so low, fuck yale
well at least we agree on something

>This is all coming from what Veeky Forums would call a poltard, by the way.

That much was obvious from the first sentence. Even regardless of content, your way of writing gives your self assured pseudo-intellectualism away.

>they didn't do it to "subvert ARE CULTURE" but to financially incentivize artists to move away from politically charged work. the same thing is done today in asia and latin america.
nah, it was more of an attempt to promote American art as progressive and innovative, opposing the traditionalism and figurative nature of communist art to sway European intellectuals to turn on Russia, not that the artists themselves had anything to do with it, it was just heavily promoted through touring exhibitions and critical praise. Abstract Expressionism isn't inherently bad just because it was insidiously promoted but I feel it did influence modern perceptions of art for the worse.
Some of it is alright.

if you don't like the stuff jews and sheiks are buying, the vatican is free to open up their wallet and commission some "classical art" any time, michaelangelo didn't work for free homie, he need fat ducat stacks and good boipucci to get the creative juices flowing

It's not, you're just obsessive.

I don't know

>idk

is this a raid or did some autistic mother fucker figure out how to pass the google captchas using an image processing and deep learning, there used to be a mother fucker on /mu/ who could pass the captchas and had bots that would spam gore, but i think he was just taking the audio captcha and then using a signal processing library to convert it to text

>They didn't do it to subvert culture, but to [description of subverting the culture of art in Europe]

O..k?

>is this a raid
I dont fucking know kiddo

Why do people always pretend that Contemporary Art is inherently marxist? The vast majority of painters, composers and conceptual artists were apolitical individualists, with only extremely small fringes of Marxist artists.
Not a single Marxist painting has been posted on this thread.

/pol/ gotta /pol/

>Why do people always pretend that Contemporary Art is inherently marxist?
Because they are illiterate dumbasses who probably migrated from /pol/, after migrating from maga-plebbit

This
t. Art school drop out

>just taking the audio captcha and then using a signal processing library to convert it to text
crafty

I DI NOTO KNOWe

Their reasons are as valid as yours. There's no one way to appreciate art. I might think art is only good if it's in the service of God, you might prefer self expression, others prefer craftsmanship. This world surely is wide enough to hold both thee and me

Carl Jung "Man and His Symbols" literally addresses this in, I believe, Part 4. In butchered regurgitation, the absence of any absolute truth or morality in place of subjective everything caused many artists to reduce their art almost completely to basic the basic "form" of matter, probably because/since in the reduction of anything socially constructed as an absolute, only matter remains as anything that is still absolute.

I don't know

Oh it also established that the transition from realism to pure form makes sense in a way because photography took over as the artistic representation of realism, for obvious reasons.

Even if you don't want to read the whole book, I think that part is only about 70 pages. You could read it today instead of shitposting.

what did this autist mean by this

PragerU is the opposite side of the kosher sandwich

>why modern art is a bunch of postmodern
how fucking broken is your brain?

modern art by rr brettell

>neo-nazi
youtube.com/watch?v=76NytvQAIs0
huh...

>modern art is a bunch postmodern Marxist bullshit

given that this almost definitely a shitpost, i wont say more than this: art is a lot easier to understand if you know a little bit about the time it created in (the terms, images and concerns of an age are all related)

i remember that guy. he broke /mu/

i want my sharethreads back

holy jesus i need to go to bed

*bunch of
*this is
*it was

its because people are so deracinated and atomized that they can no longer connect to most art.

its why brutalism gets such a bad wrap. the overt utilitarianism destroys any ability to attach emotion.

average people saying modern art is shit is reactionary as they watch their country die and become overwhelmed by other populations. art overwhelming seems to espouse rich urbanite interest and struggles. I think that without strong mutual culture its hard to create that kind of awesome, grandoise art from classicsl eras.

why would I want to understand leftist moral relativist egocentric deskilled decadent dehumanizing derivative deceitful deictic despiteful desensitizing garbage?

>average people saying modern art is shit is reactionary as they watch their country die and become overwhelmed by other populations.

This makes no sense: mass immigration has been an problem for Europe for 10 years, while contemporary art has dominated the intelligentsia for almost 100 years now.
If one wanted to find links in the rise of high culture, the fast industrialization of the 20th century and the globalization that stemmed from it would the the 2 big ones. Certainly not muslim refugees arriving en masse in Europe starting from 2005.
The problem is internal, inherent to our culture: no one but the Art industry is attacking our concept of high Art.

futurism is cool but schools always brush over it because muh fascism.

say what you will about the tenets of italian fascism but at least they had an ethos

to not come across as a pompous asshole who doesn't even know what he's talking about, for starters

>futurism is cool
>cool

Your unsophisticated language lays bare your primitive origin.

Communist art has been historically accessible and designed to please both the masses and the intellectuals. Shostakovich was a Communist artist, the guy who hits Marimbas at random times while singing like a goat is just a yuppy.
What you have defined as
>moral relativist egocentric deskilled decadent dehumanizing derivative deceitful deictic despiteful desensitizing garbage
Is a trait inherent to globalized brand-based capitalism, nothing that makes any sense whatsoever from a Marxist perspective, after all how should random lines on a canvas help the struggle of the proletariat? If anything it does the exact opposite, for it steals from the philistine (who is not willing to read 10+ jargon-based essays to understand this or that undeciphrable artist) the certainity of human excellence in the Arts, which has been a predominant cultural trait of the West for at least the last 3000 years. Under these paradigms, the artist simply stops influencing the working man in any concievable way (which means that he'll let him drown in a sea of capitalist ideology, instead of offering him an alternative).
Contemporary avant-gardistic art is necessarily individualist and essentialist, it simply has no place in any sort of Marxist praxis.

How is modern art being defined here anyways?

I love this kind of surrealist sort of paintings, and the ironic thing is that the people who hate modernism/postmodernism most (the "right") don't seem to understand that communist hated anything outside of realism. It was considered improper/degenerate/"formalist".

Fuck communist and conservative cucks.

you are correct in that regard but the latter issue is pushing it further

when you have competing social and ethnic groups, especially groups such as Muslims that do not give ground on their beliefs there is a battle for what is considered acceptable and relevant to the people. Social cohesion has severely broken down in the past 20 years and not being able to identify with art because patrons are generally sponsoring subject matter that either appeals to a foreign audience in an attempt to seem more tolerant or appeal to all in which messages get lost.

I do agree with you in your points but I think mine are valid to a degree as well.

Soviet art and music, such as that of Shostakovitch, shines trough despite of the communist pressure to turn it into propaganda. The propagandist elements slowly fade away, losing their impact or any meaning, with the art persevering as a testament to the failure of the totalitarian regimes of the past.

>communist hated anything outside of realism
Wrong.

Stalin-era Soviets hated anything outside the realm of *socialist* realism.

whatever faggot

low-brow easily digestible cubist kitsch

To make this clearer, the pre-Stalin Soviets attracted large numbers of modern artists.

stalinism vs the branch of internationalist red anarchy we see now are two entirely different beasts.

the latter has produced no meaningful art imo

...

The point is that this is the framework that was used in every Communist country. It does not matter if it ended up being cheap propaganda, the point is that it not end up espousing any of the tennents of pomo, for they simply made no sense in a communist society, which was instead the implication of both OP and the user I was responding too.
I'm not giving any jusgement, I'm just pointing out that what they said is simply wrong.

This lasted only 3 years, and yeah it lead to Russia becoming the hub of Western avantgard artists. Stalin stopped it, for there was no social use for compositions based on sirens and people screaming or plays based on actors mumbling random sounds for 50 minutes.

I don't know fag

I don't know

"socialist realism"

What amazing tolerance for the arts. Communism is a cancer. The fact that they resisted art critical of their ideology alone should be evidence enough of their artistic ideas. Both they and fascists are authoritarian regimes that resist free expression when it contradicts their ideology.

even lenin allowed weird art

it's stalin who decided to ruin everything by becoming machiavelli's ubermensch

Democrats ARE THE REAL RACISTS

But no one would ever reason that, it's too random for interpretation, if I gave any random bystander the technical ability to draw they would come up with the same random shit, it's a vague colorful image that can host any abstract idea but in reality it truly represents nothing

>why modern art is postmodern art
Please leave.