Modern Art

Its not about meaning, its a rejection of meaning.

Modern art litteraly means nothing and everything. You can't criticize modern art cause it's a collection of mixed techniques, from a simple canvas, to video art, to art installations etc
But the interesting thing with that debate is that people, like the pic you posted, see a white canvas as the representation of modern art in itself.
Why is that?

I ask you "what is beauty?" and why would it be the same thing for an artist? Sometimes also, an artist likes to ask a question rather than answer it.

And skill? If a work doesn't show any particular skill, isn't it worth asking yourself what they were trying to do?

This.

I would ask myself:
What do i see?
Is this completely black or are their nuances?
Is it dark blue? And so why?
What do i feel looking at it? Does it do anything to me?
How was it done? Brush strokes or some other technique? And why?

Stop saying "Modern art" when you mean contemporary.

Picasso, Dali, and several other great painters are also part of Modernism in art, you ignorant faggot.

Sorry for being brief; condensing sentences into formulae is an efficient but excluding practise.

As to the first point a work of art, simply by being called a work of art, doesn't mean that it's good or something that can hold hold your interest. If I place an apple in the middle of an exhibit I can certainly call it art but that doesn't mean that you have to think it's interesting. "Art" is not (anymore) some special category of things which is automatically worthy of deference.

As to the canon I was just connecting to literature. Some think that there is no "canon" of good books, or literary classics that are "great" or better than others. They try to destabilise the idea of a canon by asking questions like: what is the limit to what we call an author's work? For some authors, like Nietzsche, some of their books were compiled after the author's death which means that we have made a selection of what we think is deserving of being canonical or not. The fragment mentioned above is a famous example of a real note stowed away somewhere in Nietzsche's home; did it have "hidden" significance? Why was it excluded from collections of his other fragments when its relation to his other works is not known?

An answer, in brief, is that a work of art is to be interpreted according to the prejudices and faulty perceptions and preconceptions of the reader, who works out his idea of what the work is by the act of interpreting it. As he reads the work more deeply, his understanding develops, preconceptions fall away in favour of better assumptions, and so the process goes.

if anybody is interested in some academic reading

www2.philosophy.su.se/carlshamre/texter/Gadamer_Circle.pdf

Because you confuse art and craft. Nobody is claiming it doesn't take more skill in painting to paint a detailed realistic picture but that's not the (main) point why people appreciate art.

Also not Veeky Forums.

Also this.

It's a good job these people don't design airplanes

>modern art
>art
>>>/bullshit/

I've read an article on it. It is not actually a blank black canvas, there is a blue triangle, but only visible when you view it from the front, hence not visible in the picture. And that is the point of it, the artist uses a technique which makes something only visible from a certain angle.

The problem with contemporary art is that it's either too politicized or too meta. Artists keep talking to themselves and just fucked things for the actual audience.

If it makes you think, then it has succeeded. "Art for art's sake" need not apply, although it is equally as important.

I went to an artacademy and basically you are supposed to start your practice from scratch with only a small amount of introduction into some basic techniques.

>but that's not the (main) point why people appreciate art.

Then tell me why contemporary art is universally rejected by everyone except rich people (who only do it to participate in vanity structures) or pretentious Art majors? Every single museum that contains Art spanning from the year 0 till the late 1800 is always full of tourists.

Depends what you expect from it though. Maybe you've been looking in the wrong places.

What is precisely your problem with it? People cannot answer this question because it is not clear enough. Is it about clarity? Intention? Effort? Subtlety?

>Then tell me why contemporary art is universally rejected by everyone except rich people
It isn't.

>always full of tourists
So in how many modern art museums were you?
Also tourists are the worst measurement of art quality you could possibly think of.
Also also I bet you everything the Andy Warhol museum outsells the classic art museum every day of the week. Turns out tourists go by big names not by great art.

most of it
yeah, true

the artist is dead

>or pretentious Art majors
You forgot the second part of the statement. The truth is normal people have stopped caring about plastic arts when they come from the art establishment.

You don't even have to quote Gaddis, you are basically talking about Aristotle's categories. To say that art is about skill, for example, is arbitrary even if you assume that humans are capable of rational aesthetic judgement.
Instead the traits of a piece of art create a context, any criticism will make sense only in said context. To be more precise, it is useless to look for counterpoint in Velvet Underground, and even early Mozart, yet the absence of said trait does not constitute a flaw per-se, especially if you campare VU or early Mozart to any decent worthless fugue written by students.
Or imagine criticizing an abstract painting for its lack of perspective, yet drawing a doodle in persoective does not equal surpassing Kandinsky in every possible regard. Many other similar examples can be made.

I haven't. It's equally wrong.
>The truth is normal people have stopped caring about plastic arts when they come from the art establishment
Everything about this statement is demonstrably false though I have no clue what you think the "art establishment" is.

"The truth" is normal people don't care about classic art either and never did.

Ironically do you have any argument that isn't "establishment approved classical art"? Saying people don't like something doesn't make it art or not art. Otherwise big bang theory would be high art.

As for craft I guarantee you if you'd actually care about art and not just use it to drive home a point you will endless modern artists who create great paintings and plastics just the way you like them.

That's what is funny about this debate.
The ones that criticize "modern art" can't even describe in details why they don't like some work they've seen ("meh it means nothing", "i could do the same")

Its actually the same with music. Open youtube with a freah account and see what vevos they recommend you.
Its utter garbage

Yeah, bruh
We're born in the wrong generation
everything is shit now
Except rick and morty
Wubbalubbadubdub!

>Meh Art is not what it used to be
>How dare artists change with their time

So art has two parts:the technique (superficial appearance) and menaing. Opponents of "modern" focus on technique with out meaning and modern art proponents argue for menaing with out technique

I dont watch rick and morty so i wouldnt know. Im not saying everything is shit today but what they offer you in the first 10 rounds is essentially braindead horseshit

>his mind is so twisted by memes he thinks that pop music is good

>MUH FUGGIN WHITE CIVILIZASHUN!!!!!
Uhh... how about you graduate high school before thinking you have any right to criticism?

>his mind is so twisted he thinks pop music is a modern phenomenon or "high art" music doesn't exist anymore
What a poor position to argue that you only can apply selective perception because you know great music still gets made

Also
>implying pop can't be good

None of what you said changes the fact that the suggested music on youtube is garbage

>my new bitch she yellow
>she blow my dick like a cello
>skrr

Yeah, this is my fundamental problem with art criticism. They don't often provide a clear statement of their objection to a particular piece, nor do they raise concrete questions that can be answered. It's all fluff, emotional runoff, etc. Ambiguity and vagueness as safety nets.

If you don't understand shit about art or it's categorizations, why the fuck do you even pretend to care? Looking at pretty pictures that really made you think on the internet is not consuming or aprehending art. Now, as to why the fuck do you think "technique" and "menaing" (sic) are the standard criteria for judguing a work of art I don't know, but if you wanna be a classicist dolt about it, at least use the conventional and agreed upon principles in Vasari's art history or some variation of those, not shit you pull out of your ineducated ass.

On every fucking art thread you post this shit and it's still yet to become anything but a tacky as fuck painting .

>pop music isn't good

pleb

youtube.com/watch?v=SSR6ZzjDZ94

op doesn't answer. I'm out. Hey op you're a stupid pleb with boring taste.

Please tell me which critics you dislike, because it mostly sounds like you're equating plebs in a gallery with art critics.
If there is one problem with most contemporary critics is how they approach works with a "puzzle" view, as if every piece has a core that can be reached through investiagtion, people who did what you described and stuck to describing their upon aesthetic experience would be much better critics than the typical egghead investigator we have these days.

I meant specifically the latter, so not "art critics" but instead my friends in museums.

>and music still for the most part requires you to produce something at least minimally music
are you retarded or baiting
art music hasn't required any semblance of musicality for over a hundred years

Then it's not art criticism's problem, it's people outside of the art world's problem.

Which art critic would you recommend reading? Who is clear and concise and persuasive?

isn't it just a dead fake industry for laundering money? i thought this was common knowledge

If we're talking contemporary, I barely read anyone outside of my region and they're all in portuguese, though I've been reading a lot of stuff from this magazine spikeartmagazine.com/en

/thread

What is beauty! And you are asking me?
beauty... is you.

I am a second year Painting Major at a damn good Fine Arts school. Most of my friends are non arts majors and consist of engineering/compsci geeks, frat bros, yung urban activists, and ROTC kids, and I am constantly lauded for being THE most interesting and inspiring peer they have ever had, often because I INSIST that they go on museum and gallery trips with me. My college peers are nearly all people who have never engaged with art before I came into their lives.
My favorite experience was when my rando first year roommate, the type of sheltered suburban white kid who used the word Nigger liberally in conversation, stood in front of an Abstract painting by Jack Whitten (an African American painter and early disciple of MLK and Malcolm X) and nearly weeped.

Care to elaborate? (Self masturbatory question)

>My favorite experience was when my rando first year roommate, the type of sheltered suburban white kid who used the word Nigger liberally in conversation, stood in front of an Abstract painting by Jack Whitten (an African American painter and early disciple of MLK and Malcolm X) and nearly weeped.
i'm sorry to tell you but your friend doesn't look white at all
still impressive that you've reached this level of enlightenment and color blindness

I suggest yall buy a copy of "Air Guitar" if you wish to engage with the art of the past 75-ish years. Its a fantastic group of essays, critic Dave Hickey inflicts much of his fantastic charisma and deep, direct knowledge of American culture in writings that touch on the aesthetics of Basketball, Psychedelic Art, Automotive design, and beyond.

I am sure Odd Nerdrum, who echoes the same criticisms made by everyone else, is visually illiterate.

that's not my fucking picture

>Most of my friends are non arts majors and consist of engineering/compsci geeks, frat bros, yung urban activists, and ROTC kids, and I am constantly lauded for being THE most interesting and inspiring peer they have ever had, often because I INSIST that they go on museum and gallery trips with me.
The loneliest person in the world came up with that sentence

good bait, but i agree

I remember something that one of my best friends told me about what she considers to be "modern art".
>it's garbage
what do you mean? You can't criticize modern art in its entirety...
>well i saw a few paintings where there was nothing, i felt nothing, and big installations that made me feel nothing
so...because you've seen only a few, you decided that this was all of modern art?
>but come on, you know the ones i'm talking about. Like i dunno a big rubber dick in the middle of some art gallery, what the fuck is that?
I don't know...what do you think it is?
>It's shit. And that's all that modern art is.
But...you paint too. Wouldn't that make you a part of the modern art you criticize?
>looks at me....

She's a contemporary artist (or not even that), modern art ended 60 years ago.

Art completely devoid of any form of beauty or which evokes absolutely nothing in a person who isn't making up bullshit barely deserves the name of art

Its not bait, I won't put any effort into verifying the truth of that post. I think many would agree that a lot of Americans live extremely boring, spoonfed lives, and my friends' engagements with art has challenged their perceptions of themselves and the world around them and brought true beauty and escape from their daily struggles. Yall are arguing on a literature forum, and I bet you've read novels that have had tangible impacts on your life, whether it brings you closer to self-understanding or allows respite from an imposing outside world.

I work very very hard in school and I use my free time to sleep, read, eat, and go to art institutions. I won't deny that painting is a bit of a hermetic pursuit. Going to museums is fun and allows for the occasional moment of deep empathy or connection when confronted a great artwork through and with another person.

By that account anything is art, yesterday I spent about 20 minutes thinking about the elegance and simplicity of pic related, and I wasn't even high yet. I've spend more time thinking about zig zags than I did to a lot of classic paintings, actually.

>Painting is a bit of a hermetic pursuit
my dude you should try engraving, people might not be interested in the theoretical aspects or the process of painting but they at least know what painting is.

>Evokes absolutely nothing in a person
So you think everybody thinks the same as you about it?

bump

>bumping after 5 minutes on a slow board
but why?

>If it makes you think, then it has succeeded at being art
Everything makes everyone think and feel user. Grass does. Asphalt does. Do you mean that everything is art? If everything is art by default, than it means the concept of art is useless because it doesn't refer to anything in particular. So art doesn't exist. But a since art does exist, it must refer to something in particular, and thus not just everything that makes you think or feel, no?

>is visually illiterate
Based on what saccharine tripe he paints, yeah, I would agree.

What this retard doesn't realize is that miming Rembrandt these days isn't as much of an accomplishment as miming Rembrandt in his days was.
You should probably look for better heroes.

If only he was miming Rembrandt at least. What I've seen of him belongs somewhere between 19th century academicism and cover art for game of thrones paperbacks.

Aside from the fact that the period of Modernism is over, even saying that Contemporary art is shit isn't the same as saying that all current art is necessarily bad. As an artist I have a range of work that I admire, stretching from medieval tapestry art to recent illustrators like Akihiko Yoshida and Gennady Novozhilov

thanks user

it's always like that. people who know less than nothing about contemporary art tleling the world how useless it all is... why do you bother you faggot? you feel restless, under attack? something bothers you? you don't want to be missing out?
fucking dit.

modern art is subjectively shit

>cover art for game of thrones
because he paints women pooping in woods?

/thread

>LE EDGY BASED LIBERAL FECES AMIRITE MAGAPEDE XDDD

you don't approach contemporary quantum mechanics without a basis in rudimentary arithmetic, why approach conteporary art (whether movements in the literary, musical, or visual which have all followed along the same trajectory) without a basis in rudimentary art history?

Mastery of skill and visual art were determined to not be that relevant for the metaphysical concerns that had been the true point of high art since the Renaissance. Sometimes beauty or technical mastery appears and in fact I'd argue that a lot of contemporary art is too concerned with beauty or mechanics and misses the point of art which lies beyond its illusions. Literature and music are lesser arts (I'm not even sure 'art' is an adequate term).

lol

shut up faggot

Post modern/contemporary art that is not well know and is considered good by art critics please.

>manufactured products for the masses are garbage
water is wet and you are a fag, get over it

Anything by Andres Serrano and all those similar assholes.

You can launder money with any art, Modern, Classical, you name it. If Modern art was gone, launderers would just use Monet, Vermeer, ect.

avecaves.bigcartel.com/product/weapon

>defense of Modern Art
Art does not require a defense, regardless of the movement.
>But isn't this complete nonsense?
Not at all.
>When was mastery of skill, and (if you believe it exists) beauty, removed from visual art?
It hasn't been so this is a completely false premise.
>requires you to write coherent sentences
This hasn't been true for close to 100 years now.
>produce something at least minimally music
The last four decades would be evidence against this.
>self-masturbatory congratulating themselves over how smart they all are
A completely false belief that you only hold because you yourself are unlearned about art itself.

I've seen people eating live mice, strapping firecrackers to themselves, putting things in their butt, throwing potatoes and just spitting on windows being passed contemporary performance art. At least two of them had gotten government grants for it too.

And they do

Those paintings look very powerful to me.

>plastic arts when they come from the art establishment.
Kusama tickets literally sold out the second they were put up for sale for months straight just this past summer.

>removed from visual art?
it wasn't, you're appreciation of it is just shallow

>form of beauty
>evokes absolutely nothing in a person
>making up bullshit
W E W L A D
E
W
L
A
D

This is some HARDCORE /pol/ tier projection