Is there any truly revolutionary art today that breaks with the past and tries to rise above the conventions...

breaking paradigms is a modernist meme. we are long past that, kid

Filmmaker Pedro Costa

Flaherty already did docufiction and cinema vérité in the fucking 20s

Only seen one Flaherty but I believe Costa is doing something totally new, especially in Juventude em Marcha

Art already has broken with the past. There are no conventions to be broken. In fact, it is a convention to break conventions.
If contemporary art seems stiff to you you have no idea what you're talking about. Artists can do literally everything now and call it art.

>Artists can do literally everything now and call it art.
Thats nice but why would anyone pay attention to what they make?

Art will do the full circle into returning to (or aiding) a religious experience.

That has nothing to do with the theme of this thread.
And btw when I say "literally everything", I actually mean that. Artists can squeeze paint out of their vaginas onto the canvas or paint a hyperrealistic still life. Composers can write pieces for amplified matchsticks scratching grind paper, or beautiful neoclassical and neoromantic pieces. And so on and so on, there's no doctrine that can be overcome anymore.

because sometimes it's good.
also because a lot of people have no taste.

>is there any revolutionary art being made today

pop skull (2007)
bloodborne (2015)

Kanye West

It's written "Schoenberg." Don't have to thank me.

but oe and ö are the same thing

Embarrassing

Attached: 220px-Stephen_Craig_Paddock.jpg (220x364, 19K)

>It's written "Schoenberg." Don't have to thank me.

Attached: ¸.jpg (574x1024, 47K)

Depressing thread

>Artists can do literally everything now and call it art.
>give me a turd and i will theorise it
postmodernism has left us with a lot of turds and the lingering idea that pointing out heavily theorised turds is some act of violence, oppression or tyranny. The word discrimination has negative baggage when it's something you have to do every minute of the day.
Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion. Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
ITT: kids who think 'novelty' is a positive word.

>Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion. >Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
Have you never heard of Raphael? Michelangelo? Da Vinci? What about Palestrina, and a German guy named "Bach"?

Attached: 1519313117857.png (728x682, 721K)

They're all very good but it's ultimately still just craft in the service of religion, i wouldn't call them artists.

Those guys were no better than my plumber, who knows his craft. They made the pipes run.

>postmodernism has left us with a lot of turds and the lingering idea that pointing out heavily theorised turds is some act of violence, oppression or tyranny. The word discrimination has negative baggage when it's something you have to do every minute of the day.
This has nothing to do with the theme of this thread either. It barely has anything to do even with my post. Are you schizophrenic?

>Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion.Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
You're a braindead nigger my man

>the single greatest artists of all time aren't artists
Then what the fuck is art to you? Rick and Morty?

Attached: 1520052175671.jpg (340x435, 17K)

Art is the creation of an aesthetic response purely for its own sake, the pursuit of Beauty unsullied by ideology. Art is never political, and any religious motive at all is political. Well made propaganda is still propaganda.

So Rick and Morty, right.

Attached: 1518642138602.jpg (400x400, 20K)

Your idea of art is an ideology. If you produced art according to your quite precise theory of art, you would further this very theory, and thus your work would be propaganda. You're garbage.

Today I learned that 95% of art isn't art because some cretin on Veeky Forums said so.

I have literally no idea how you could reach that conclusion. Rick and Morty is nakedly ideological and not remotely beautiful in any aspect.

I wouldn't be furthering any theory, I would be creating Beauty, which needs no context and has no content.

>literally everything that was art before some virgin neckbeard started shitposting on Veeky Forums shouldn't be called art anymore
You're a dumb bitch, you know that?

Attached: 1520705604069.jpg (640x640, 97K)

>Raphael
>Michelangelo
>Da Vinci
>Palestrina
>Bach

>literally everything that was art

I'm not the dumb one here.

Those are only a couple of examples. The only purely aesthetic art, the one you'd be fine with, was what Debussy and Wilde did, decadent art. Throughout history art was made for various purposes, very rarely purely aesthetic, and if you're not aware of that while dictating what art should and shouldn't be, you should jump off a bridge.

Mozart was, in the end, just a propagandist as well.

>Throughout history art was made for various purposes, very rarely purely aesthetic
... and so very rarely art. Its OK to enjoy propaganda, but you shouldn't pretend it has the status of art. Be honest with yourself and others. Say after me: "I enjoy art AND ideologically motivated craft."

Is this some sort of master bait

>implying bach's work was ever "in service" of religion

>things are like this because *I* say so, the rest of the world doesn't matter
>I can redefine words according to my opinions
How postmodern

You say that as if your definition of art was more objective than mine, when in fact the opposite is true.

Religious experience is essentially the same activity as art done in truth. The spirit is stirred in the same manner. Art will in future be seen as truthful manifestation of the spirit or not.

>shaman make good stuff cuz he have good feel
>in future everybody can see whether shaman had good feel or not

Attached: oogaboogaaa.jpg (800x450, 38K)

No, because you require 50+ years or more of context well after an artist is dead and gone to say "yeah they really shook things up".

Only arrogant narcissists believe that no new art movements are happening or will happen. It's literally "everything has already been invented" retardation.

lol i liek that doggster

nope, but this guy is pretty good

Attached: Narcissus.jpg (960x684, 54K)

lol where is his left tit

No, art went in a dead end direction

>Is there any truly revolutionary art today that breaks with the past and tries to rise above the conventions?
Many. All the time, especially in the present day.
The thing is, it's mostly all shit. 'shit' as in, it doesn't sound/look pleasant. Simply doing something uniquely different rarely corresponds with quality art. The best things come from extremely masterful and minute adjustments to very well-established conventions.

>thinking and doing anything is automatically ideological
Meaningless concept then, isn't it.

WILLIAM T VOLLMANN but /lit and the world dont know how to read

Attached: images.jpg (182x277, 8K)

>Then it's not art. It's craft in the service of religion. Decoration, graphic design, propaganda, none of these are art due to their utility.
Paradise Lost? The Brothers Karamazov? The Divine Conedy? The Conference of the Birds? Rumi, Sanai, Hafiz, the Sufi poets in general?

None of this is art?

Of course it is, even a rabid anti-religious person like myself can see that

>even a rabid anti-religious retard like myself can see that
ftfy

t. christcuck

The pedigree of what we call 'art' only exists because of a long continuous history of the metaphysics privileged in the West to which we associate the highest forms of art. It's an academic term, so talking of an art that is hypothetically situated outside of this tradition, you would no longer be talking about 'art' as such. There can be no break with the past, nor a rise above conventions, there can only be the illusion of such that still derives its 'meaning' or function as a 'meaningful' object/concept within the limits of art history. Think of this: would it be revolutionary if it were exhibited in the gallery or museum? And if an art work deliberately tried to avoid the gallery, does it still not implicate the gallery?

All wrong. Fuck off back to /r/eddit.

Attached: quadri-più-famosi-di-van-gogh-notte-stellata.jpg (845x654, 216K)

The highest forms of art are craft purely in the service of onto-theology, which includes religion. Aesthetics justifies itself with recourse to the very same metaphysics, when it actually comes down to what beauty -is-, what its function -is-, how we derive pleasure and for what purpose, etc. L'art pour l'art, which you advocate, is just a 19th century spin, and a purposely blind one, on the network of ideas that allow art to generate meaning. It falls short of being adequate for two reasons: 1. it does not account for all art, and is as useful as saying 'all art has the colour blue otherwise it is not art'; 2. it is impossible to argue on the exterior of art that its exterior does not matter, because the justification you have just set up is still required for it to efface itself and leave only the 'aesthetic' character of the art which has been qualified.

He's right you dumb cunt.

my music

>No, because you require 50+ years or more of context well after an artist is dead and gone to say "yeah they really shook things up".
no, you don't
face it, there are no big guys in contemporary art

didnt know MC Ride posted here

babby's first reading of "The Origin of the Work of Art"

Unironically this and many electronic artists.
soundcloud.com/tsuruda/everyone-sounds-like
Prove me wrong.

/thread

>maximalist electronic music
>revolutionary

your post might've been relevant if we were in 2010, sperg

If it doesn't sound new to you, your palette has been numbed and desensitized by an over-wash of irascibility.

Attached: 1520135893186.jpg (867x873, 311K)

>lives in the post-post-internet era
>Mute, Hippos in Tanks, bubblegum pop, Flying Lotus, Arca, Giant Claw, Rustie, M.E.S.H., PC Music are all things past
>unironically claims yet another adhd Ableton-core producer is not only relevant to music, but doing revolutionary work

just fucking LOL

Attached: james_ferraro_sushi_cover.jpg (960x960, 11K)

my diary desu

Why does art need to break with the past?
Post-modernism and the 20th century already brought all the chaos and the necessity to cause shock. There's nothing new.
Art should strive for beauty and show things that value the whole universe and existence.

stfu, you probably can't even into Schoenberg.

youtube.com/watch?v=JEY9lmCZbIc

>Why does art need to break with the past?
because fuck the bourgeoisie xDDD

Post-post-modernism stream of metamodernism consciousness

>Art should strive for beauty and show things that value the whole universe and existence.
t. has kinkade paintings in his home

t. bourgie scum

you're right, because this is garbage

This bread made me ponder a lil. Can you recommend me some books on art?

No it isnt.
Are you fucking blind?

Is that dfw

no user

Attached: Lucifero.jpg (800x1020, 130K)

Gombrich - The Story of Art
Janson - History of Art
the starter kit

no his music sucks

Unironically this.

he is right but the renaissance masters are still artists, what they made wasn’t even christian most of it was hermeticism disguised so the church wouldn’t kill them for being pedophiles. also i do hope the christfags chimping over this statement realize, Donatello, Raphael, Boticellic, Michaelangelo, Bernini were all homosexuals with young male lovers who did not practice christianity but Greco-Egyptian mysticism. The Renaisance is about as Catholic as a burlesque show in Vienna

But Raphael died of a fever after fucking his gf too much.

Have you tried his romantic stuff like gurrelieder? It's interesting to watch how his style evolved until the second quartet which has three tonal movements and the finale descending into free atonality

John Berger - Ways of Seeing
Peter Burger - Theory of the Avant-Garde
also this Is this true or it is just a myth? Is there serious historiography about it?

>christfags chimping over this statement realize, Donatello, Raphael, Boticellic, Michaelangelo, Bernini were all homosexuals with young male lovers who did not practice christianity but Greco-Egyptian mysticism
What are you talking about.

your ears vs mine then

Not an argument

>Only seen one Flaherty
Then you're not qualified to call something new. Get in the back of the line.
>Costa, Bresson
Bresson thrills through austerity. Costa beautifies through elongated abstractness. They both became 2001. Overexpansion and overabstraction which branch into obviousness and banality. They are both vulgarizations of Flaherty whose complexity goes beyond every cinephile's head, whose emotional heft is gifted by the piercing of reality within the confines of it.

Bresson took reality, Flaherty's imprint on it, and the density of Dostoyevsky, and streamlined it to multiply questions based around narrative convergence (Brief Encounter and Bicycle Thieves)

Bresson is vulgar because he is so direct. He stripped reality in reality, he did not pierce it. Bresson is no truth whatsoever. He's psychological imprint. He's literature. And he appeals t the middlebrow literary majors that consume film circles (i.e. cinephiles, dropout_bear)

In short, Bresson is bullshit.

Costa is editing out all exposition and maintains only quiet moments and glances so you're forced to peer outside his pidgeonholes. He is further abstaction of Bresson, and it is abstraction to the point of obviousness. To aim for closeups and design around those as your nucleus is to be obvious and to abuse emotional investment with technique, to aim your camera in obfuscated postions forcing an impossibility of looking outside the frame is trickery. Flaherty is superior to each, his ideas are disguised by common, universal mundanity, not through precise editing. Flaherty lulls the viewer into a transient state where you begin to not notice the edits and parallels he is making.

1948 was the end

Attached: rich texture.gif (647x475, 3.84M)

>but the renaissance masters are still artists
No they're not, you dumbfuck. Practice doesn't change creation and intent.