Is this the greatest painting based on Virgil's Aeneid of all time?

God those texts always make me sick.

this isnt even post modern, it doesnt deconstruct or critisize anything, it just uses abstraction as an artistic tool. art has been focused on muh feels since the greeks mastered normal realism, and has been experimenting with new methods of expressing that ever since. if you seriously think that the only "masculine white" artstyle is realism, you might want to consider reading up on some art history

Attached: 621px-vatican-le_laocoon.jpg (621x600, 70K)

Ops pic looks more in line with modernist practices.

Why is the colourscape made of these bright oranges though.

Why does he associate these colours and the emotions they provoke with the shores of Carthage in the Aeneid.

This description doesn't explain shit.

>Why is the colourscape made of these bright oranges though.

To elicit thoughts of sunset. It's in the description.

Why is the sun setting? Because the sun set on Carthage (it was utterly destroyed) and because the sun set on Aeneus' love for Dido (he left her).

>A Klee painting named Angelus Novus shows an angel looking as though he is about to move away from something he is fixedly contemplating. His eyes are staring, his mouth is open, his wings are spread. This is how one pictures the angel of history. His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward. This storm is what we call progress.

Attached: angelusnovus.jpg (675x903, 118K)

Post-modern thought. Take a child's painting of a grotesque stick figure in the rain, say how it represents the void staring back into you and how the hidden sun is the Overman. Not post-modernist in words, but in thought and trickery.

*donates fifty shekels to peterson's patreon*

Is the painting like 10 feet tall, which makes it much cooler? I think I saw a pic on google images of him standing next to it

it actually resembles what it the paragraph describes quite a bit, and it's fucking beautiful. if this is too abstract for you, where do you draw the line? tell me, is this painting post-modernist bullshit bc it's not a photorealistic representation of water lilies?

Attached: 56f21e7f0fb9b.image.jpg (1066x500, 101K)

Yeah, Peterson invented criticism of the post-modernists. Therefore no one else can critique it, everything is copywrited.
It's abstract expressionism, and it post-ironically symbolises something with great meaning that you could never actually see in the image itself.
Reality is that the lines between modernism and post-modernism are quite blurred, and given your comment I doubt you're interested in a serious discussion on the subtleties.

i am honestly not a fan of klee at all, but if you think what he does is easy then do it. come up with a fake name (so as not to soil your reputation), and make a mark in the modern art scene

Haha. Good bait.
But 2/10 because you already tried above.

get rich quick off of these libcuck suckers

might not be the greatest but it's definitely pretty cool desu

Attached: 1521055533498.jpg (395x373, 33K)

oops

>if you're not doing it then it must be good
>posting fallacies on lit

that was actually my first post, but i'm 100% serious. every artist uses abstraction to some degree in the sense that the map is not the territory, ya know? the point of the painting is not to represent the thing it was inspired by, it's supposed to represent the essence of the image it conjures better than any more realistic depiction of the city on the horizon.

no, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying acting like it's bullshit that you could whip up in an afternoon to scam people is preposterous.

artigarchy.net/

It is though.

you two don't even deserve one of my brainlet pictures

then do it and get rich dog! what're you waiting for

Nothing wrong with liking the art, or even arguing that it's objectively good. But suggesting that it really does connect to such an important historical event and even that blurb, come on.
>BUT IF WE BLURRED THE HISTORICAL EVENT INTO A FOG IT REALLY DOES REPRESENT IT!!!
lmao
youtu.be/iJCxrUpQBI8

Attached: artigarchy.png (892x416, 353K)

Attached: 1522041843810.jpg (900x729, 67K)

...

again, that's not what i'm saying. obviously the blurb is excessive and melodramatic. again, it doesn't represent the event (which wasn't historical, it's mythological), it represents the artist's conception of that singular image. also i hate to point this out, but denying that an artist's intentions have any relevance in place of your interpretation is preeeeetty textbook postmodernism my guy

Are you retarded?

Certainly you are.

>Greeks
>Not Pic Related
Nice bait

Attached: michelangelo.jpg (220x255, 25K)

>this thread

seriously? That looks like shit and I can't even tell what it's supposed to represent.

>lemme just explain this art I made