Is conceptual art just an excuse for hacks with no skill to call themselves artists?

Is conceptual art just an excuse for hacks with no skill to call themselves artists?

Not lit.

Not lit.

Pls make Veeky Forums fiction, poetry, and linguistics only.

>making concepts require no artistic skill

Everybody has concepts dude.

No, it's more like coming into a tv show at the 9th season.

>Everybody has concepts dude.
Damn, have you thought about making this an essay?

>that One and Three Chairs artwork

woah

Kosuth is extremely skilled as a thinker and writer, and his art reflects that, as is the case with a lot of conceputalists.
Now, why don't you go back to your former thread so we can keep on btfoing you in there isntead of cluttering up the catalog with your eternal asspain?

The OP is nothing but a relinquishment of self, a mirror of what already is known and defined. A ctrl+c then ctrl+v. No soul, no self, nor creation.

See, you don't even try to deny it's you. Please try to define art with terms that mean anything intersubjectively, not with your "art is the fog rising on the peak of of the Pirinees" shit

I'm Count the posts and posters.

And "Intersubjectivity" is jargon without basis.

>"art is the fog rising on the peak of of the Pyrenees"
No, art has to be constructed through and make reference to tradition, fog is nature not art. But you make a good point which is that fog rising over mountains is something which has been considered beautiful for many generations, in which the beauty is inherent. Chairs however are only beautiful when you abstract them so far from their aesthetic forms that they become Platonic objects, which are one of the oldest examples of pure delusions being considered more valuable than real objects.

Yes, recognizing other people exist is needless jargon.

The point of conceptual art is not beauty. As I've said, please, refrain from commenting on things you don't understand (art being one of those things)

this but unironically.

Aesthetics and beauty is biological, like all sensation. It is not subjective. The only subjective thing in the world is the degree of pre-established phenomena.
A man who can't appreciate beauty is a defective inferior human. Alike colorblindness, you do not call his vision equal ours.

Lol, you probably couldnt take a picture more beautiful than the one in the OP if angels themselves were in front of you posing.

Like this user said You have to be aware of the whole history of an art form to understand its current state. The tendency of painting straying away from verisimilitude around the same time photography rised is no coincidence and is a very important correlation.

Bad art is when the little explanation on the card was developed after the piece had already been made

>The point of conceptual art is not beauty.
Then why call it art? It's essentially just literature, since you always have to read something to understand it. Art is not a conceptual medium for transferring conceptual information, it is a visual medium for communication of visual aesthetics. There is nothing in the OP which couldn't be better demonstrated in a purely verbal form.

that's probably true of almost all art except conceptual art tbqh

While claiming beauty is biological is a bit of a stretch, you have to be completely retarded if you think someone has to reject traditional art to appreciate contemporary art. It's not a competition, if you had any real love and affection for art you'd understand these things developped quite naturally. But you don't, as I've said a number of times before, you're only worried about the idea of enjoying art, but the only thing you're able to enjoy is yourself.
Lad, i've tried it like that, listing the material / social conditions, and the guy said I was wrong. I tried pointing him how artists had their reasons to follow through as they did, and he ignored. I tried explaining how art isn't a qualitative characteristic and bad art exists, he ignored as well. The guy read a Schiller, a Scruton and a Icycalm book and crowned himself the global kunstwissenchaft superior.
Because it's made by artists. We have also been through that and you ignored this as well, I think the other thread is still up, you can return to it and reread it. Also, art isn't sacred, we've been through this as well but I think you've ignored it too.

>2019 - 1
>Still conflating beauty and aesthetic experience
Why is this board so full of illiterates lads?

This.
/Thread

>Aesthetics and beauty is biological, like all sensation. It is not subjective
>”i have no idea how the brain works”
The modes and systems that function in our brains are comprable but different from person to person. Experience and genetics mold the way our brain interprets the world. No two people have the same neurological structure. People can also mold themselves due to neuroplasticity to enjoy certain things. If you read about conceptual art and are a naturally conceptual person, that is to say you appreciate context over form, you’ll appreciate conceptual art more than traditional forms of art. Also art appreciation is not biological, its cultural. Even your sense of delth perception in painting is a developed function, not biological as William Hudson proved back in the 20s. You’re a pseud and ignorant.

>There is nothing in the OP which couldn't be better demonstrated in a purely verbal form.
I'd actually enjoy reading you doing just that.

Hey lad, I've never head of William Hudson, but can you give me a quick rundown?
Also, you have to understand this guy doesn't have the clearest idea of what people mean when they use the term "Art" academically and thinks every other aesthetician, art critic, historian and artists themselves don't understand what art really is.

You don’t have to read anything. I appreicated Rothko the moment I saw one of his paintings. It was incredible. I didnt have to read to understand what he was doing. It made sense to me because I had thought the same things as Rothko had once thought by my own. Modern and conceptual art are the ultimate pleb filter. People who have personal definitions of art are arrogant and often stupid because they’re incapable of thinking outside themselves. They lack that very essential element to art appreciation, empathy. That’s why History abandons them.

It exists for several reasons.

1. Talentless people find an excuse through it, as you said.

2. Resentful people find a means to tear down "the establishment" through it.

3. Rich folk who only care about what gives them fame sometimes support it.

4. The deeper specializations of the sciences and the democratic structuring of modern society has fragmented people and made it harder for them to grasp a whole understanding of art. (their idea of what is art has consequently also narrowed)

>you have to be completely retarded if you think someone has to reject traditional art to appreciate contemporary art.
There's no such thing.
There's only beauty, and degrees of it.
Let me Paint™ it for you.

Hudson did an experiemt back jn the day before Psychology of perception was a thing. He tested african tribes who’s traditionally art was structky two dimension (the kind that inspired Picasso and the sort). He showed them 2D representations of 3D objects (like cubes). He then asked them to replicate the objects using sticks. Instead if making cubes like a westerner would, they just drew the 2D figure they saw. They didnt see the cube, they just saw some diamonf shaped line figure. The conclusion was that observing depth perceptjon in a 2D medium (such as painting) is a developed function that one must exposed to and explained through cultural or educational means. It’s not necessarily an inherent ability of the brain. Later on this kind of research become to be known as the field of psychology of perception. Ultimately the way we look and appreciate art is molded by our experiences of it. The more you know, for example, about film the more anomalous is your perceptual map of film watching; in other words, you physically look at different things in a scene than the rest of the population.