Has reading made you more cynical?

It's made me bitter and fearful, though my mindset has been similar to so, just exacerbated. I'm starting to get paranoid as well, but that is possibly unrelated.

What is the pic related from? Of all the classical art works I've seen, they don't ever draw 'em like that.

I get really cynical about normie shit. I'd to be able to get something out of self-help books, for example, but it is all just written for the lowest-common-denominator. I also can't read the news for the same reason. It amazes me that absolute retards can earn 6 figures while I'm sitting in my shitty apartment wondering what I should do with my life. I believe it takes a really impressionable, non-reflective mind to think that you have a purpose in life and stick to a "mission." I wish I was a retard.

nice boobe

a general cynicism or pessimism always results from a shift towards pseudo-intellectualism.

I was just fired thanks to this thread. Thanks user - now I can pursue my writing 100% of the time without work getting in the way.

I want this to be true so bad

>Getting fired for viewing artistic depictions of nudity
Your boss is retarded.

Jason Juan. He's still around.

t. non-reader

look at the faces of suicide site.
look at how many people suffered
how many were born after you and died before you

Read more Dazai until you realize he wasn't a misanthrope.

It was for browsing Veeky Forums at work, obviously.

I think reading has made me less cynical.
I love to read misanthropic/cynical things because I'm an overall negative person, but not to the same extent as some authors. Celine and Heller are ones I find hilarious and can sympathize with them. Though I broke down in tears reading Notes from Underground because I related to the Underground Man so much and could see myself becoming him.
Basically, reading gives me some cynical catharsis while also allowing for self-examination.

That#s because it's not classical it's some contemporary asian dude
jasonjuan.com

You don't even need to do this. Just read any history book about any subject. Genghis Khan used to boil prisoners alive in a big cauldron to use the fat to light fire balls. Human history has basically been pure suffering since it's inception.

It made me more cynical regarding cynicism. I'm still cynical in general, though. Does this make me a hypocrite or am I just able to criticise myself? You decide.

Honestly I'm surprised there are still contemporary artists who paint in this mostly realistic style.

You've probably been browsing anime imageboards too long. The vast majority of art students study life drawing for a little while and generally anyone who does illustration (or sculpture) in an academic setting will learn how to draw or paint realistically before going on to other things.

this is oil on wood, btw, this year.

That’s because you’re retarded.

you're such a fucking moron

Okay assholes. I'd genuinely love recommendations of some artists who mainly paint in a realistic style.

serge marshennikov
just admit you don't really care about art and have let Veeky Forums decide your opinion on modern art

>No true person-who-cares-about-art!!
(You)

No major art gallery would display work like this in the 21st century.

Unless it's meant to be ironic, of course

Where should I start with dazai? From what I've gleaned from his wiki, his later works seem much more interesting than his earlier works. Any recommendations? How's "schoolgirl?"

There are a lot of people who still do. Search on artstation, infectedbyart, art renewal center, etc. You will find them.

Less

Reading actually makes you more idealistic and more cynical. You can only be cynical if you have ideals which you feel reality doesn't match. This is why you have to escape from the pairs of opposites.

>I believe it takes a really impressionable, non-reflective mind to think that you have a purpose in life and stick to a "mission."
Why is that?

>t. pseudo-intellectual "reader"

>he doesn't always have a constant urge to eat pussy

Yes, especially reading Hardy and realizing the quaint little rural England shall never return

bumping this for my poersonal gain

No, but this awful site has.

This kind of "art" is obviously contemporary. Its technique is a simulation of classical art but the anatomy and poses are obviously inspired by 21st century erotica and pornography. That's why you won't find it in actual classic art.
It's pure kitsch. Reminds me of all those images in the same style but with modern fantasy or SF scenes that reddit and imageboards like this jerk off to.

Yeah. And cynicism doesn't necessarily many being reductive - the latter is only the most lazy form of it, although every cynic succumbs to it from time to time. Being reductive is only the resting time of a good cynic, the real enjoyment comes from nuance.

t. didn't understand Notes From Underground

tell me about how you know the world, user, and how the world is not at all like what it is.

Dazai is not a misanthrope.

no, browsing /v/ in my more formative years did. I barely clawed my way out

I'm not sure what you're going on about, really. Why is it not art?

Elaborate.

Except this is not realism.

Trash like this is just 19th century academicism hyped up to an echelon of saccharine artificiality Bougereau didn't even dream of. It's the kind of thing that gets 1000 upvotes on r/art because neckbeard redditors who derived their aesthetic sensibilities solely from watching anime have finally "classy and elevated" material to jerk off to.

artrenewal.org/LivingArtist/Search

So, there is not one aesthetic piece there to you?

he didn't say "realism"

>pose carefully designed to maximize masturbatory potential
>face turned away because you can't handle looking a woman in the eyes, even if it's just a painting

is there anything sadder than the modern male

he already explained. it's not art because it's kitsch and it's kitsch because it relies on libidinal manipulation.

>it relies on libidinal manipulation
So the artists' whole effort is moot because they decided to draw a girl with plumper than usual tits? Sounds pretentious.

draw/paint*

Reality is pretentious, this world aint your hugbox.

>Reality is pretentious
That makes no sense.

you're working very hard to confuse a simple issue by introducing these unnecessary concepts like the artist's level of effort or some unspecified return he deserves for it. he drew a kitschy porno firmly rooted in the tradition of kitschy pornos and i identify it as such. what does effort have to do with any of this?

Because it's not just "kistchy porno." That's ignorant. This still required a conscious effort, an understanding of color balance, lighting, juxtaposition, anatomy, etc. It is obviously less skillful than classic paintings and less artful since painting is no longer a high art, but that doesn't mean it's some cheap throwaway piece of crap that the artist behind it thought nothing of and just wanted to market to horny teens with.

it required an enormous amount of effort, knowledge and understanding to supply the entire city i live in with functioning indoor plumbing but when i shit into one of these toilets i do not appreciate it as art but as a device that frees me from the burden of dealing with my own excrement. porn is a similar device, but for extracting semen from balls. high effort porn is just a golden toilet.

the problem is that you conflate art with craftsmanship and propose some sort of inane system of measuring effort in which boyhood must be a great movie because it took 12 years or whatever. think of how much better it would be if they made it on roller skates, or while juggling. so much effort! unfortunately i have no interest in being an effort approximation technician.

if you want to prove me wrong then engage with op's picture as art and post the results. what are you getting from this artwork? warning: speculating how long it took or how much the guy's wrist hurt afterward is not what i'm looking for. that double entendre was honestly an accident.

I sometimes wonder if reading has made me empathetic to a fault. I am more or less incapable of holding an opinion about anything nowadays.

I don't consider OP's pic high art for a number of reasons, but if it is fueled by genuine passion and a desire to express to any degree, and it is a creation, then it is art at some level, and it's better than modern art to me at least, which was a reactionary movement seeking to "liberate" (i.e. tear down traditions because modern capitalist society's demands were too pressurizing to be able to maintain them, or even maintain a passion for them), not express a passion in your creation.

>le 12 years meme
>hating on boyhood because its gimmick even though it has so much more going on
you crave entertainment

Looks like blood on skin to me.

okay, you know what this is? this is you failing utterly at doing what i asked you to do. i ask you to engage with a picture and you run away in three directions at once, just to evade having to look at the fucking picture and say something about it.

first there's something about the art not being high enough for reasons you refuse to name. what's high art? don't answer, it's just an excuse not to talk about the picture. then there's "genuine passion". what methods have you used to determine the feelings of some dude you don't know? notice how you find it easier to speculate about the authenticity of the emotions of a total stranger rather than say anything about a picture that's right in front of you. again, evasion. finally you wrote an incoherent political rant about "reactionary anti-traditionalists" (?) that steal passion or something. please for the love of christ don't elaborate.

and all the way through this roller-coaster of a post you never mentioned the picture i asked you to talk about. not a single feature of it, not a single word. i would get more insight into the picture if i asked a child except they'd arrest me for showing this lame porno drawing to a minor. you know that color theory and anatomy exist, so to what end does this picture use color and body language? what is the picture about? why is her head turned away? what's up with the snake? if it's art, then what are you getting from it? is there anything at all? because so far the only reaction this artwork has produced in you is, apparently, the burning desire to change the subject.

>if it's art, then what are you getting from it? is there anything at all?
I see a female form with a non-average anatomy, the skin looks cool and clean and the extremities / joints red with warmth (fingers, toes, ears, knees), she is bent naked on a rock in the wild, the snake of Eden crawling up to her suggesting that she has already awakened sexually, she looks outward as she now possesses a sexually active predatory mind and is curious to experience the world. The lighting source is not applied very well, and her abdomen area looks too long. Obviously it's not even close to something like a Rembrandt piece when you look at the details or how the piece is focused, it is fairly mediocre in quality. But nothing in the subject matter suggests reaction / revolt against something; it is most likely just a comp done for educational or career purposes, but that's besides the point, because the subject was still selected by the artist, so there isn't necessarily an offensive air about it, just a mediocre one.

I'd just like to add that I did answer you before though. This is how I define the terms:

Artist - someone who expresses their passion through the act of creation.

Art - such passionate creations which are worthy of reverence.

Look up the word passion if you don't know what that means. Reaction is not necessarily passionate. Mediocrity is not exactly worthy of reverence, but when it is not offensive, it can still be enjoyable to some degree.

hooray, i finally got the basic naked lady + snake = bible connection out of you. but these things don't really add up, do they? if she's being approached by the snake, wouldn't that be pre-seduction, not post? why the pornographic pose, designed to maximize the visibility of sexual features? isn't pre-seduction eve supposed to not care, and post-seduction eve be ashamed of her body? and what's so predatorial about sitting out in the open and having a snake sneak up on you? does this all add up to something coherent for you? you quickly change the subject again so i assume it does not.

what this actually is is a lady in a pose inspired by modern softcover porn with an incoherent biblical reference thrown it. this is exactly what i mean by the libidinal manipulation of kitsch: the point is to give you a boner and remind you of sunday school at the same time. nothing is being communicated other than a vague implication of transgression to go with the arousal. it's about giving you a naughty boner. it's kitsch.

your concept of art is a gaping fucking hole. you know there are artists and they work hard or whatever, and you know that you're supposed to respect that, but the actual art and your engagement with it is completely missing. that's why, when asked do defend an artwork you talk about everything but the artwork. you have to be patiently directed across multiple posts to make as basic an observation as "there is a snake, like in the bible" because it all art is ultimately interchangeable to you. you just like the idea of liking art. that's why you don't see the difference between art and kitsch: both serve you just as well for the purpose of fantasizing about other people's passions, which is what you do instead of engaging with art.

Honestly, life itself makes me cynical. Books have only been a relief

>why the pornographic pose, designed to maximize the visibility of sexual features?

I don't see it that way at all. Its sexy as fuck sure but it doesn't look necessarily intentional, its nothing outside a somewhat natural posture the fact she's looking away from the viewers perspective enforces that

The place looks shitty to me. What sort of Eden is that? I see Lilith and her new pal, looking to the West.

>the point is to give you a boner
No, it's to appreciate the wild feminine in a dismal world, which is sexy, pure, curious, seductive.

what a kitschy painting.
it's hard to imagine how someone can spend the amount of time necessary to develop a relatively advanced technical skill and then use it to paint something so aesthetically corny.
i mean i get that it's failed art and it happens but it's shocking to see an artist fail this badly.

explain what makes it kitsch
inb4 because it has a naked girl

i love this

The snake.

>snakes are now forbidden in art
whoa

Biblical imagery combined with 19th century stylistic affectation and 21st century pornographic vulgarity makes the whole thing comical. If it is meant to be amusing then the artist has done a good job.

Art isn't verbal.
We don't "explain" images.
Maybe try developing an aesthetic sense and understanding the discussion before posting nonsense.

Or it could be you're looking at it wrong.

Snake = seduction
Girl = lust
Nudity = wildness
Unblemished skin = purity
Environment = hostility
Pose = curiosity, readiness
Total piece = the artist's appreciation for the wild feminine

>using "art" to mean "painting"
How's freshman year treating you?

You're making rationalizations. And rather unimpressive ones at that.
You can do that for literally anything. It's transparently bad art.
>b-b-but it's SYMBOLS MAN **bong gurgle**
fuck off pleb

>Pose = curiosity, readiness
kek
Deviantart-tier exposition to go with deviantart-tier porn.
Why not just cut the bs and say she's dtf
ayy i want to watch those focal-point titties bouncing while that hiked up little pussy moves the viewer's eyes onto muh DIK

>You're making rationalizations
No, I'm telling you what I see. You're saying the snake is "Biblical imagery" and that makes it kitsch i.e. it is there just to basically virtue signal like "look it has a snake in it like the Bible so this is art." Wrong. It is there because we are familiar with the Bible and the snake so we see it and we immediately gain access to the sensation of the world of seduction, but the real point of it is "I appreciate the wild feminine and I want to express that, seduction is a part of it in my point of view, so how is an easy way to express it? I know, I will use an animal that is familiar to others for that quality that I want to express." It is there to grant access to a feeling.

you know you're talking to a real art lover when the read a painting like it's a political cartoon. the rock is healthcare reform.

>No, I'm telling you what I see
>by allegory
Ok so you're retarded as well as tasteless.
What is it with litfags being unable to comprehend that the visual arts aren't their domain?
No one cares about your hack application of words to interpret images. It all falls flatter than dat ass.

Yes, in a direct and indirect way.

She is gripping the rock, her foot off the ground, her back curved, her shoulders tight, she is looking outward, unconcerned by the snake or unaware of it. She is clearly curious about something ahead of her, and ready to pursue it.

What the fuck do you mean "by allegory"? The point of the piece is to create a sensation, this much you already admit. Except you think the sensation intended is horniness. I just fucking told you how I think otherwise because I interpret elements in the piece differently than you.

Lmao you take this shit way too seriously. You dont have to find every piece of garbage interesting because its made with oilpaint.

>he thinks I "interpret" art
wew lad
e
w

l
a
d
you just don't get it do you sweetie. stick to the meme trilogy

>Let me tell you what is and isn't art
>btw I'm not taking any of this seriously
Also, you overestimate how much I enjoy the piece. These are just elementary observations as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't really admire it for longer than 10 seconds or so if not for the backlash against it and claims about art itt

Not the best word choice, by interpret I meant how I perceive it / subconsciously take it, not what I conclude after actively thinking on it.

i watched a nature documentary yesterday and there was a snake in it. i immediately gained access to the world of seduction. that's actually where i'm posting from.