The average person reveals their stupidity and fear when they criticize modern art as being "meaningless" or a "trick." They fear the unknown, that's obvious, but also, it's a total lack of vernacular and ability to understand anything about what you're seeing. If I told you pic related is one of the finest paintings of the 20th century, what would you say? You have no ability to understand what you're seeing on any real level unless you're an art major. But, take a subject like astrophysics, and even if you don't really understand it even on a simple level, it seems like you can. You think about the physics you did in high school, thing bounces into thing, imparts energy, other thing moves. You can think of astrophysics as like that on a larger scale, even if that isn't true it feels true and it feels like you can get a grasp on what astrophysics is. You know terms like inertia, mass, orbit, etc. You have a little vernacular. But modern art is so strange that even if you know a little about color, hue, and weight in compositions, its still so bizarre to you that you recoil reflexively and declare that it must be a joke. There can't be anything you don't know, can't be anything that you could never even come close to understanding. The thought terrifies you. For example, this painting makes me think about how we think of mental space. In my memory of this painting it was airy, the edges of the square were not defined, and when I see it now it makes me confront my preconceived ideas of mental space and of the metaphysical, this painting is giving form to the metaphysical. It's giving form to something we can never see. It's a beautiful paradox. What do you see?
Modern art and the average person
Other urls found in this thread:
Veeky Forums fucked up the picture
>What do you see?
ur mum
What the fuck is even going on. moma.org
There's one problem though. Astrophysics isn't subjective, the rules must be universal. Art is subjective, you say rococoo is tacky and over the top. I say modern minimalism only cares about shock value rather than beauty and awe.
You're a retard is what's going on
/thread
>Astrophysics isn't subjective
The value of Astrophysics certainly is subjective. If everyone who studied Astrophysics studied engineering, architecture, or became doctors instead, the world would be a better place.
While art can be a touch esoteric it's not like it's impossible to learn about these things and come to understand they why of it. In that regard it's much like any other complex field where people specialize. I often think of people who dismiss contemporary art out of hand as being somewhat akin to climate change deniers in the sciences. They have preconceived notions about things(like notions of beauty and such in this case) that they will defend to the death while simultaneously ignoring any information that conflicts with their initial thoughts. It's true that the average person can feel intimidated by these weird pieces and that is something of an issue all right, but it's not like it's impossible to educate yourself about these things.
It's only perceivable and understandable to someone heavily versed in the study and knowledge of it. This is the same as with most other manners of studies, for example Platonic metaphysical philosophy is just as irrelevant to day to day life, and comes off as lofty and unnecessary to people not versed or understanding the context of the theories put forward.
My problem with modern art, is that on top of that there is the tendency to focus heavily on human emotion, which is ephemeral. To at once glorify human existence in all its forms, selectively cast it as meaningless, and criticize other viewpoints. Whereas a lot of classical art is knowingly bourgeoisie, disdainful of the poor and uneducated, and not trying to be otherwise. The two are both the result of the ability for people to spend time at non-utilitarian tasks, but a lot of classical artists have known this and do not pretend to have kinship with the Hoi Polloi or some absurd thing.
My point ultimately is that, I do not care what someone spends their time doing or producing. But for myself, as a time-consuming art form (as all art is), modern art seems in no way a superior art form than previously existing forms of expression, and even by the necessity of the artist to clearly explain their motivation an inferior one. By being misunderstood they can easily be judged incompetent, fake or pompous. In the end, it's all a matter of taste, and I don't personally care for it and think its an unnecessary waste of time
but you're exactly the type of sorry, moron I was talking about and you don't see it. you may change though
I think I'm being very open to your viewpoint and agreeing with your assessment, yet you go straight to character insults.
Why should I care about learning an art style that requires, as you admit, education in it, if I find many other subjects more interesting and worthy of spending my time on? I do not even in the least find it aesthetically pleasing, so how is it at all superior to other art forms, such as the highly expressive and spiritually deep manners of Renaissance painters? How is it more thought-provoking than a deep and varied study of philosophers, classical, Christian, and more contemporary? Again, how in the least should I be impressed by someone who attempts to introduce their view of a topic through a very clearly biased, angry and elitist point of view?
>obeys no standard of beauty like that's a good thing
>there's no work put into no matter what the 'artist' claims
>beauty on the eyes of the beholder bullshit
You can spin this thing you call art in a very verbose and subjective way, sort of like Armond White and his opininons about how Michael Bay is one of the greatest auteurs of film but at the end of the day if you need to explain why something's great you are doing it wrong.
Just my opinion as an average citizen.
it's part of mankind to feel accepted by its peers and nodding, looking smart and spouting meaningless junk disguised as deep thoughts is something most people do when they visit a gallery with this kind of shit
>pic very related: it resumes this pathetic part of the human psyche in a fucking tale
Why do all people into modern art act this way. If it's a subjective art form, why can't you accept people don't like it?
>muh conceptual abstrakt art
go fuck your dumb self op
While I like modern/post-modern art or it's completely new value construction, there are a lot of artists and architects who use these styles to push out a load of rubbish since they know most people won't understand it enough to judge quality and just begrudgingly accept a huge trash heap.
Worse when people claim there is no judge of quality which is a load of bull.
However open your mind may be the moment you question the 'point' or intention/meaning/whatever of contemporary art some shitlord like jumps in to call you a moron, or condescendingly deigns to inform you that "you just wouldn't/can't/won't understand", the subtext being "fuck off pleb".
So, contemporary art - what and why? Honest question.
>you only disagree because it is 2edgy4u
nice meme
Art isn't about beauty and awe only.
It's superior to previous forms of expression because it allows just that, expression, among other things. Modernism allowed artists to re-examine just what the fuck they were doing instead of endless repeating the same history paintings and still lives over and over. it is superior because it allows forward momentum and experimentation without the need for blindly fulfilling conventions out of tradition.
It allows for thought and debate rather than stifling conventionalism. It's not all about subjective taste as some might have you believe. We have a hundred years or so of academic writing from Collingwood to Danto to work with here. There's plenty of reasons beyond taste that people make the kinds of art they do. This discursive process did not take place in any kind of useful form pre modernism. Unless Vasari blowing smoke up Michelangelo's arse counts as discourse.It is the possibility of discussion and debate about works that are put forward that was not possible in previous systems that also makes the modernist approach a better one over all.
Finally it is superior because it not only allows for experimentation but also for works of great technical skill if that's what floats your boat. Nothing is precluded, unlike in previous forms of expression as you put it. You can go out there and make whatever. If it's put forward for consideration, if it's interesting or provoking it can be art. This was not the case in say, the Paris salons in the 19th century. You painted what the academy wanted and you did it there way or you didn't get to play at all. And this is not to say simply "everything is art" in a dismissive way as it is so often interpreted. It's the possibility, the room to consider. The beauty of it is that you can work with anything. If you really want to go and paint twee landscapes or hyper real portraiture you can.
So yeah, Modernism is far superior. It allows for everything that came before and a whole lot more.
I'm
and OP seems to entirely misunderstand my point. Which is just adding to a list of other people I have spoken to about modern art, trying to minimize my own preconceived notion of what it is, and listen to their rationale for why they care about it only to be attacked. I am not in the least scared of it, why can't we just hear a reason for it being a useful form of art? That non-Euclidean rationale seems so empty to me, why would random lines better express abstract meaning than the metaphoric or allegorical works of various other, more readily apparent art forms?
>Incredibly narrow idea of beauty
>has no conceptions of material concerns, has never moved beyond crayons in technical understand.
>pretends its all subjective to cover up for inherent intellectual laziness and lack of curiosity
Good job average citizen
>instead of endless repeating the same history paintings and still lives over and over.
But modern art repeats itself too.
Its tiring to see the same pieces of junk arranged of random materials in ways that neither requiered effort nor look overly aesthethically pleasing or unnerving again and again.
I see how ou could say this in the 70s when it was still new and ultra controversial to produce a minimalist arrangement of colourful surfaces-not better then a mere cofee jug ornament-and to call it art.
Now this trick has become blunt, sorry bro but you guys are boring.
Narrow like the top of a mountain's peak, which only a few can reach.
Beauty is based on symmetry because symmetry is a sign of genetic health.
Wise words from an old goat...
"Modern art is the perfect reflection of the modern psychology.
A chaotic, jumbled, mess, hinting at a concept it cannot calcify.
A form of self-expression even a child can perform, or an animal, implying equalization, by using perspectivism to justify the idea that the simple can be considered complex, and the ugly can be beautiful.
No symmetry, no order, no clarity, which is what beauty is, only the siblings and blotches of a mind gone insane, trying to detach form reality, lacking talent, aesthetic appreciation, mastery, but pretentious and deluded enough to think it deserves to be heard and seen.
The majority of modern f-art is the epitome of democratic idealism: the idea(l) that inferior/superior do not exist, and that if you find a dealer, an agent, clever enough to sell, to make you marketable, your "quality" is proven: being sold to the many, popularity, being the modern levelling of what we know as quality.
Modern f-art daring you to contradict the popular, the common, the shared decree, and having "experts" available to defends its all-levelling ugliness for a buck; building careers, livelihoods, on hypocrisy and the manipulation of human need.
Modern f-art not concerned with the real, but the unreal, the implied, the insinuated, the so abstract the observer must find the content where there is none - f-art for the masses. It is whatever you want it to be, because it is nothing; art based on impression, on fame, on personality cults, on hucksterism...the f-artists fame, his public personae being sold, not the f-art itself; being purchased by pretentious, insecure, wannabes, trying to appear as what they are not.
The equivalent of this is how "philosophy" is being used, in our time, by the common, modern mind-farter."
Part two
"Words, language - it being another art form) disconnected, detaching, from the real...from the perceived. Thoughts so abstract they can mean anything to any one, because they have no reference point outside human brains...sold to pretentious, simpletons, desperately wanting to appear as thinkers, when all they are is purchasers, regurgitators, their mental walls full of scriblings, splashes, lines, they cannot explain without an "expert" - some credentialed, authority sanctioned by the institutions - telling them what they mean.
For such minds nothing can be permitted to refer to the aesthetic, cannot be permitted to become ordered, consistent, symmetrical...the democratic idea(l) depends on the perspectivism of turning all into a chaotic mess, so as to then preserve the myth of equality.
Nothing can be judged, can be valued as objectively superior, because all must be levelled down to a personal emotion, or a collective decree based on how well it sells, or how useful it is to the majority - the utility being a creation of the social, economic, cultural milieu.
Nothing must be defined, clarified, because this inhibits the all-inclusive which then produces the marketing gurus who can package and sell anything, any garbage - garbage being valued as the endlessly recyclable."
I see something that's not art
What if I fully understand modern art, but I still prefer titian?
Talk to musicians. They can explain why a modern harsh noise composition is music and worthy of note, but very few of them will prefer it to Mozart
isn't is possible that the people who disagree with you are not morons?
Part three
"Words can now be given a general definition, but never attached to anything perceived, because this would decrease its abstractive utility.
Sex, itself a very aesthetic, appearance based, phenomenon, is an example of how the word "sex" can be detached from its natural reference point, and turned into a chaotic mess, of an idea, now implying what it cannot define, and daring the observer to contradict it. The word "sex" is what matters...because it implies, and can be connected to an emotion, a feeling, some ambiguous sensation which a reference point in nature would diminish.
The word is mystified, sanctified...which means it is retained in its most abstract form which is only obliged to refer to a book, a text, offering a general outline with multiple possibilities.
Like with the modern f-art piece: a canvas with different shapes, intentionally or accidentally, placed there, alluding to something but not clarifying, because this would inhibit multiple interpretation...perspectives, from using it for their own goals.
The f-art piece must remain democratic...accessible by the sophisticate and the simpleton...useful to both for their own reasons.
The f-artist, having found the perfect salesman, can now indulge in mindless f-arting, knowing that his public personae is being sold, through his f-arts...same as famous "intellectuals".
The f-artist must only remain unclear enough to be useful, accessible, to the many...and then ride his fame towards riches. His every f-art is the work of "genius" once the marketing agencies get done with constructing his social image.
Recently I heard Beyonce, in an interview, refer to her music as "art", and to herself as an artist...I almost gagged.
A dumb chick, who is more of a performer than an artist, becoming famous because her image sells, to ugly, girls who dream of being more."
My thoughts exactly, every attempt to understand gets met with an insult like I'm interrupting the secret society of the informed. Which only makes the backlash stronger I imagine.
That honestly sounds entirely relative to the art form and medium. The framework by which various past art movements have worked under still allows for nearly endless expressive capabilities and content, not to mention clear discernment of varying levels of skills. Your explanation entirely sounds like that of an anarchist criticizing social structures, yet those same social structures exist because they work and a anarchic society does not because it is not event a society.
Again, to Renaissance painting, if you have ever properly studied it you would know that each little detail has a precise meaning and is chosen to convey a specific mood, tone and nuance to the work. Just because it is in the form of people, items and places and tends to use biblical or classical imagery, and is done through clear mediums such as painting does not in anyway ignore the depth of meaning the art conveys. It is almost as though you are focusing on the superficial form of the art work.
Part 4
"F-Art is more about performing.
One performs it as one farts.
The right agent can turn that fart into a perfume, bottle it in a pretty, seductive, little bottle, and turn farting into an artistic expression a career can be constructed upon.
The modern f-artist is all about the performance, and not about the content.
The words are his colours, and his linguistic performance is judged by how many find it impressive, or comforting, or seductive, or appealing on an emotional, sensational, level.
And what do the masses find seductive?
That which makes their existence bearable...nothing which challenges them and their comfort zones."
Rekt.
I can give you that to some extent but the repetition is not inherent to it as it was before modernism. What your referring to is the effect of Duchamp and if you know anything about his work or ideas it becomes a little clearer why modernism has an obsession with this random stuff in white spaces lark. I have issues with artists lazily rehashing Duchampianism over and over but the repition is not the crippling problem it was pre modernism. Modernism has the potential for new advances,unlike the previous systems of representation that precluded it.
>Modernism allowed artists to re-examine just what the fuck they were doing instead of endless repeating the same history paintings and still lives over and over. it is superior because it allows forward momentum and experimentation without the need for blindly fulfilling conventions out of tradition.
Foward momentum and experimentation? Modernism offered no such thing.
Its answer to a crisis in meaning and expression was a physical expression of the crisis itself.
It proceeded to fall under repetitive formulae and trends, and became the accepted mode of merchantile art of a culture that really has nothing more to express other than its exhaustion.
While trying to fight conventionalism, it accepted the innevitable defeat of painting as a medium and took that sort of nihilism as the new convention.
Funny you posted White on White from Malevich in the OP, as you couldnt really show a better example of the expression of complete cultural depletion than that painting.
There is no "discourse", there is no "discussion". There is only jargon that has been carefully constructed as the accepted language of a select group of producers (the academia you so despise), that use it as a mystifying justification for their work. A veritable sales pitch for a heavily structured market.
Everything is possible, yet nothing is truly worth our time because there is nothing to say anymore.
You could say the last thing to be said was expressed in the painting you posted on your OP, but honestly, the last truly significant expression of Art died with Cezanne.
>Modernism allowed artists to re-examine just what the fuck they were doing instead of endless repeating the same history paintings and still lives over and over. it is superior because it allows forward momentum and experimentation without the need for blindly fulfilling conventions out of tradition.
>This discursive process did not take place in any kind of useful form pre modernism.
fuck off, modernism is NOT the movement that permitted 'peoples to reflect upon what is art'. impressionism and expressionism were questioning the academia beforehand.(as an exemple) moreover, if you think the painters of the 19th century followed the same methods of those of the 15th century, you're just proving to be a pompous ignorant fuck who knows nothing of, say, things like Chiaroscuro and classisist art
>This was not the case in say, the Paris salons in the 19th century.
>You painted what the academy wanted and you did it there way or you didn't get to play at all.
First, the salons period ended in the 18th century, it was art galleries and exhibits where art was shown.
Second, plenty of art here used academic boundaries to paint something that shocked the entire country. the 'dejeuner sur l'herbe' being a prime exemple fuck, even liberty guiding the peoples shocked the academia for it's morbidity.
Third: peoples like delacroix painted what they wanted, regardless or not of the academia. the 'radeau de la méduse' and 'greece on the ruins of missolonghi' being a prime exemple.
To conclude: you sir, more than just spreading your ignorance all over a long and cringey post. you act like the very peoples you loathes
please kill yourself.
I shouldn't have used the word moron, more like you refuse to see what's right there.
In all honestly I'd love to kill every single person who claims to like modern art but specially those who produce it. Bunch of disgusting subhuman retards, waste of air, scammers, and retards who buy into their scam.
But I do not have power so I'm content with just telling anyone that mentions it that modern art is fucking garbage and dismissing them as retards not worth talking to, as anything they might say from that point is as worthless as modern art.
That's what you are, OP, a piece of worthless shit. And no, I'm not reading any of your rants because they are not worth the 2 minutes it would take me to read them.
I can understand why you think that the conception of art as an elitist craft needed to be broken up in order to allow it to become more widespread in its forms, I like some dada and early expressionism but at some point you just have reached the ground of the pond and any further digging about how to make radically new pieces of art will be doomed to produce said duchampist dirt.
At the moment there are a lot of new kinds of art going on based on the premodernist conceptions of beauty, simply because the material we can now use is much greater as well and I believe that will have to suffice just the same way there are only so many ways of making music that gets accepted as such by people.
besides that, in pre modernist times, you were restricted to a very small cultural bubble after all you couldnt leave because internet and cheap travel werent a thing.after all, so you may be a bit unfair by calling it too uniform, people didnt knew better and had to expand their horizont in a crawl.
I can't speak for the visual arts, but I am into theatre - so I can speak to modern drama to some extent. It's interesting and I like it - since it challenges traditional concepts of dramatic form, narrative and acting that have become mundane. I imagine similar motivations go into modern visual art - it's a new form of expression, those renaissance landscapes lose a lot of their evocative 'umph' when we have modern technology like photography and the fact that simply continuing to paint naturalistic scenes and people means no one's pushing the boundaries anymore.
With that said, I truly hate people who think they're special for appreciating it. It's art for artists - it takes on a fucking haughty elitism when you turn up your note at the common folk for not understanding it. It takes pretty esoteric amounts of understanding to come to appreciate most of it, and that's fine - but it doesn't make you better than anyone who hasn't invested the time into understanding it.
What pisses me off the most is artists (whether they be painters, sculptors, filmmakers, playwrights or whatever) who act high and mighty about modernist pieces trying to reflect political or social issues (usually very complex) through their art when they have no actual understanding of that issue. I have an ex who studied art, and used to do 'performance art' video pieces all the time about international issues. I studied law and international relations, and would often try and point out why her point was super simplistic - and she'd hide behind the fact that it was art so her opinion needed no justification.
> The average person reveals their stupidity and fear when they criticize modern art as being "meaningless" or a "trick."
It’s not the average person who is stupid, they immediately recognize modern art for the shit that it is, it’s the deluded and talentless “artists” and “art critics” who are stupid and fearful and bend over backwards to insist that the garbage you’re looking at, is somehow art.
> I can't understand it therefore it isn't art!
Wow. Just wow. Looks like there aren't worthy arguments from critics of the modern art after all.
The problem is that youths these days think you can go to some liberal arts school to become and an artist. They are taught
>art is subjective man
>it's not about skill man it's about how it makes you feel man
So these kids leave with their diploma in art and think it makes them a legit artist
And these people are usually morons so the produce moronic "art" and just say
>it's a statement man
Fucking trash
So beauty in art is:
>Incredibly rare
>Based primarily on human sex drive (Who are you, Freud?)
And modern art is:
>A perfect reflection of the modern psychology
>Something a child could do and is thus illegitimate (do you realize that Pablo Picasso did works of great, conventional beauty as a child?)
>Something that ought to be restricted to face value interpretation because it -can- be simple?????
>Something that -HAS- to follow beauty?
So:
>Beauty is (your description of beauty)
>And art should be beautiful
Well that's pretty convenient for you now isn't it.
And:
>Modern art is decentralized and doesn't follow any rules
>Except when it does things I don't like like represent some concept of democratic idealism
But:
>All art produced in the last ~century or so is completely contrarian because there's money to be made
Well so is there in restricting an institution to a few "tenets of beauty" that have to be studied(Re:paid for to learn) before the art made can be considered beautiful.
>modern art is not concerned with the real, but the unreal
And other forms of art aren't? Photorealism is something that is easily attainable by artists nowadays, but you hate pop-art. Hmmmm.
>fame, personality cults, hucksterism and etc...
Is that why you support this institutional ideal of what art ought to be? Is this why you assign a form and scope to beauty? Because you think it's permeated by hucksters and phonies who make insufferable kistch? No matter how badly you want to frame art and beauty into self-contained dime-store platonisms, somebody else is going to have a different opinion on the matter. That's why the hucksters are there. Whether an art form follows institution or contrarianism (modern art is not as a whole contrarian, you dolt), because people like you and I have different feelings about it. And when that happens, there is money to be made by fooling either of us into thinking we're right and the other isn't.
Last paragraph is poorly edited.
Whether an art form follows institution or contrarianism, there is money to be made. Because people like you and I will literally pay somebody to tell us that we're right and they're wrong.
>modern art
which is practicaly all art made from late 1800eds up to 1980is
yes user its all crap, all of it, no merit here whatsoever
This is the dumbest shit ever. Name any artist in history and I will school you on why Beyonce is better than them.
Seriously. He wants to make it down to a science, but he doesn't realize that if it were, we could prove exactly how full of shit he is.
But thankfully the subjectives are not sciences, so hacks like him can push their dogmatic narratives unfettered.
> It's not about skill man it's about how it makes you feel man
This is true. It doesn't matter how good art from a technical point of view if everyone is meh about it.
> its all crap
You can't be more ignorant.
That sort of depends on where you
lie on "If a tree falls..." But these shills apparently have access to some greater, perfect concept of what art ought.
Platonic ideals, not even once.
So answer me here
You're clearly implying it is not only an art form, but a highly expressive on that also happens to be superior to all other previous styles. I am open to accepting it as an art form, yet if you have ever had a proper art history course or several, you would understand that working within a standard style or family of styles is not a detriment to the subtle nuances of expression. Again, I see your focus on the form or on a subjective lack of form a superficial take on meaning and expressive work.
OP you're a cunt. Calm the fuck down, number one.
Second try to understand that what you're so enamored with is all the circles your mind runs in while looking at a painting; not the painting itself. Typical of a modernist, you are very masturbatory and self-important while also failing to realize basic things like the idea that not everyone else needs the same art you need to have interesting thoughts.
Sorry to trigger you, but the old line that "anyone could do it" is still relevant, or more accurately, "you don't even need someone to do it". You're claiming that only something like this painting could trigger such meaning in your mind whereas an infinite number of similar images have been made incidentally naturally or artificially and if you weren't so close-minded to need a visual image to have been made by an "artist" to give it the intellectual time of day you could have had your epiphany a thousand times beforehand
> "anyone could do it"
Still waiting for anyone who said it to become the famous modern artist. Looks like anyone couldn't really do it after all.
>You just don't understand it!
>You are not a famous artist, you cant criticize modern art!
>Anyone who dislikes modern art is an idiot!
>Anyone who has different opinions than me is a moron!
>Art is objective, not subjective!
I'm so sorry you fell for the art school meme OP. Maybe try not being an elitist asshole, people might treat you nicer.
> You just don't understand it!
I see only *I don't like it* and *It's crap* and both statements doesn't count as understanding of some kind.
Furry porn is more artistic than most "modern art".
'anyone could do it' is not a legitimate criticism.
Anyone could have written 'Imagine', or 'Hey Jude', or 'Johnny B Goode', they're only three chords, and the three most commonly used chords at that. They didn't though.
Monkeys with typewriters is a concept that I would like to see have more sway over people.
Sonic scat porn is more artistic than ""modern"" """art"""
> artistic
> not autistic
Simplicity of form im accordance with rigid methodology is not the same thing as paint splattered on a canvas.
"Anyone" could not have written "Imagine" or "Johnny B Good" even if they are written using the same three common chords, because first you have to actually know what a chord is to write those songs and most people don't, let alone what notes those chords are composed of, let alone how those chords relate to each other.
A "simple" song written with three chords is equivalent to a painting painted with three colors and just because the artist in question chose to use three colors of paint in his art does not mean anyone could have painted it.
A lot of modern art is actually just money laundering though
So you're judging somebody's ability to follow simplicity of form in regard accordance to rigid methodology.
By the way, your whole point is refuted by a 3d movie about rucking rats.
>implying there's a difference
> ackchyually
The vast majority of modern art is objectively crap, as your pic clearly shows.
>I see it now it makes me confront my preconceived ideas
So it's pretending to be retarded and you are taking it at face value until you agree with it, because smart people agree with art and you must be a smart person?
>If I told you pic related is one of the finest paintings of the 20th century, what would you say?
Cheap copy of Black Square. The women suprematists into textile design are very interesting btw.
We're not on /v/. It's OK to be civil you know. I never would have thought to distinguish Impressionism and expressionism from modernism as I thought it was pretty obvious that they were part of it. Expressions of modernistic tendency's can be seen in some form or another going back to the Enlightenment and Romanticism. Also never meant to imply that there was no difference between 15th and 19th century painters, that's a bit out of nowhere.
Manet is actually one of my favorite painters and specifically for the way he worked within those constraints. Those salon constraints. Because that's where he submitted that painting. The salon in 1863.Where it was refused due to the stringent standards imposed, resulting in the Salon des Refusés taking place, which is what brought the salon culture into question. I'm having a hard time seeing how he managed that anachronism from what you seem to think.
Delacroix is a good example all right of someone painting things that were a bit beyond the norm for the day but it's all still within the same visual style of representation. Studio painting which had been refined and developed from Renaissance onward. It was the shifts in modernism that finally brought us away from that. The Artists you mentioned would be some of the figures credited with causing that change through their work which deviated from the standard of the day. Courbet would be another fantastic painter that display modernistic leanings in the same way. I don't mean to belittle the academic style or anything, I just find the shifting visual language used by painters to be interesting as well as the role modernism played in defining our contemporary culture. Also The raft of the Medusa was by Géricault, not Delacroix, but you knew that I guess.
t. Couch psychologist and failed "artist"
Modern art is garbage. Deal with it.
it's the same artist. malevich
hardly anyone knows this is russian and from the very early 20th century so they think it's the same as american formalism, which is also somehow related to "the fountain", "artist's shit", "piss christ" and any other reference to poopoos and peepees that is supposedly representative of all modern art as a no-skill excuse to shock the audience
minimalism actually refers to a distinct sculptural style. it doesn't mean what you think it means. and art isn't that "subjective" anyway
i don't know why traditionalists think americans should be painting the same 'beauty' as the european academies. makes no sense
this is a very ahistorical analysis
>no standard of beauty
>beauty in the eye of the beholder
these contradict each other
art by its very nature is abstract
>Beauty is based on symmetry
rococo?
>Modern f-art not concerned with the real
completely the opposite
"F-Art is more about performing.
no only some of it was
that's very true. you really need to know what you're talking about in the contemporary art world and it's more than just pretentious art school nonsense. for some reason it seems people conflate people in art school with established artists
it's objectively crap because it's just paint on canvas, compared to all the other excellent oil paintings of the past 500 years which are just paint on canvas
That painting sucks.
>modern """""art"""""
yes, fall over and drop your shit-stained toilet paper, the janitor doesn't clean it becuase it could be ""art""